Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Review
Singapore Membrane Technology Centre, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Block N1, #01b-47, 50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
c
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0424, USA
b
article info
abstract
Article history:
Access to safe drinking water is one of the first priorities following a disaster. However,
providing drinking water to the affected population (AP) is challenging due to severe
contamination and lack of access to infrastructure. An onsite treatment system for the AP
9 February 2012
is a more sustainable solution than transporting bottled water. Emergency water tech-
nologies (WTs) that are modular, mobile or portable are suitable for emergency relief. This
paper reviews WTs including membrane technologies that are suitable for use in emergencies. Physical, chemical, thermal- and light-based treatment methods, and membrane
Keywords:
technologies driven by different driving forces such as pressure, temperature and osmotic
Disaster
gradients are reviewed. Each WT is evaluated by ten mutually independent criteria: costs,
Point-of-use
Multi-criteria
Decision
Drinking water
Emergency
Abbreviation: Activated carbon, AC; Affected population, AP; Biosand filter, BSF; Ceramic filter, CF; Disinfection byproduct, DBP;
Dissolved organic carbon, DOC; Fecal coliforms, FC; Forward osmosis, FO; Granular activated carbon, GAC; Log removal value, LRV;
Membrane distillation, MD; Microfiltration, MF; Micro-hydraulic mobile water treatment plant, MHMWTP; Nanofiltration, NF; Natural
organic matter, NOM; Photovoltaic, PV; Point-of-use, POU; Polyethylene terephthalate, PET; Powdered activated carbon, PAC; Reverse
osmosis, RO; Silver nanoparticles, AgNP; Sodium dichloroisocyanurate, NaDCC; Solar disinfection, SODIS; Suspended solids, SS; Thermotolerant coliform, TTC; Total coliform, TC; Total dissolved solids, TDS; Ultrafiltration, UF; Water disinfection stove, WADIS; Water
technology, WT.
* Corresponding author. Singapore Membrane Technology Centre, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore. Tel.:
65 61 2 9385 4315; fax: 65 61 2 9385 5966.
** Corresponding author. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Block N1, #01b-47, 50
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore. Tel.: 65 67906933; fax: 65 67910676.
E-mail addresses: a.fane@unsw.edu.au (A.G. Fane), cttlim@ntu.edu.sg (T.-T. Lim).
0043-1354/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.030
3126
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Challenges of drinking water emergency response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Water quality problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Limited access to infrastructure and resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A review of water technologies with potential for use in disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. Non-membrane-based water technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1. Methods involving physical treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2. Methods employing chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3. Methods involving thermal- or light-based treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4. Methods involving integrated treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. Membrane-based water technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1. Pressure-driven membrane processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2. Osmotically-driven membrane processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3. Thermally-driven membrane processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water technology selection for emergency relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Establishment of criteria and evaluation of water technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Water technology selection methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concluding remarks and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction
3126
3127
3127
3127
3127
3127
3127
3135
3137
3138
3138
3138
3139
3140
3140
3140
3140
3143
3145
3145
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
2.
Challenges of drinking water emergency
response
One of the major goals in emergency response is to provide
potable water that is critical for the survival of the AP.
Lantagne and Clasen (2009) have summarized the minimum
standards for drinking water quality for emergency response
stipulated by the Sphere Handbook of Humanitarian Charter
and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (Sphere, 2004):
no fecal coliform (FC) per 100 mL; chlorine residual < 0.5 mg/L;
turbidity < 5 NTU; and no negative impact on health due to
short term consumption. However, treating water in an
emergency is challenging due to various constraints. This
section provides an overview of these challenges.
2.1.
3127
3.
A review of water technologies with
potential for use in disaster relief
2.2.
3.1.
Name
Functional
parts/filter type
Production
rate
Capacity/life
span
Costa (US$)
Performanceb
AC pressed filter
block
w2.7 L/min
1800 L
N.R.
6 LRV bacteria;
3 LRV protozoa;
4 LRV virus
None
N.R.
UV
AgNP paper
0.5 mm thick
blotting paper
(6.5 cm 6.5 cm)
containing
0.2e20.4 mg Ag/g
paper
Crushed granite,
gravels or sand
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
6 LRV of E. coli;
3 LRV of E. faecalis
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
Resuspension N.R.
of the top 5e10
cm of sand
Boiling
N.A.
Varies
N.A.
Cleaning of
heating
vessels
Chlorination
tablets
N.A.
Varies
N.A.
0.08e0.015/L
1e2.8 LRV of
bacteria
Chulli purifier
Chulli and
Al coil
0.5 L/mind
N.R.
6/unit
0.3 L/min
N.A.
0.003e0.035/L
Biosand filter
N.A.
Combined
flocculationdisinfection
sachet (PUR)
References
/4 hp
centrifugal
water pump
(60 psi)
Gravity
filtration
(Abbaszadegan
et al., 1997)
N.R.
Gravity
filtration
N.A.
N.A.
Fuel
Cleaning of
treatment
vessel and
storage
container
May require
filtration
None
None
N.R.
Sand
filtration
N.R.
Cleaning of
vessels and
ladle
None
Cloth
filtration
No additional
fuel
requirement
None
(Burch and
Thomas, 1998;
Palmateer et al.,
1999; Duke
et al., 2006;
Baumgartner
et al., 2007;
Elliott et al.,
2008; Sobsey
et al., 2008;
Stauber et al.,
2009; Murphy
et al., 2010;
Mahmood
et al., 2011)
(Clasen et al.,
2008a,b; Rosa
et al., 2010;
Psutka et al., 2011)
(Schlosser et al.,
2001; Clasen
et al., 2007;
Lantagne and
Clasen, 2009, 2010;
Jain et al., 2010)
(Islam and
Johnston, 2006;
Gupta et al., 2008)
(Rangel et al.,
2003; Sobsey
et al., 2008;
Lantagne and
Clasen, 2009;
McLennan
et al., 2009)
(Dankovich
and Gray, 2011)
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
AC UV
Energy
requirement
3128
N.R.
N.R.
0.046e0.063/L
SODIS
PET bottles
Varies
N.A.
PET bottles
Solar water
heater
Structured
matrix
filter
125 L/d
N.R.
0.476 L/min
400e472 L
112/unit
2 to >6 LRV
bacteria;
>3 LRV protozoa;
>4 LRV virus
5 m3/h
>2 y
N.R.
97.6e98.6%
turbidity
removal (effluent
<5 NTU); w2 LRV
bacteria
UV007
Commercial solar
water heater
0.1 mm (nominal)
and 0.4 mm
(absolute) pore
size structured
matrix (based on
electrokinetic
action)
Oxfam tank
clarifier cone
nonwoven
fabric polishing
filter; coagulant
dose: 10e60 mg/L
alum
UV lamp
WADIS
Lorena-stove
N.A.
Portable solar
stills
Upflow
clarifier
1e2 L/mind
6/unit
N.R.
w4 LRV bacteria
Coagulation/
Chlorine
flocculation,
disinfection
sedimentation,
rapid filtration
and optionally AC
N.R.
N.R.
5 kW generator (Garsadi
et al., 2009)
Cleaning of
PET bottles
May require
N.A.
filtration to
remove turbidity
Solar
irradiation
Cleaning of
PET bottles
N.R.
May need
filtration
Prefilter (MF)
N.A.
Activated
carbon
Solar
irradiation
Handpump
and gravity
Manual
cleaning of
the polishing
fabric filter
N.R.
May need
chlorination
Diesel
generator
(Dorea and
Clarke, 2006)
N.R.
May require
filtration
N.R.
(Berg, 2010)
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
Powered by
hand crank,
bicycle or
electric
No additional
fuel
requirement
Cleaning of
sludge layer
in solar stills
(Wegelin et al.,
1994; Meyer and
Reed, 2001;
Sobsey, 2002;
Mendez-Hermida
et al., 2005;
Sobsey et al., 2008)
(Kang et al., 2006)
(Gerba and
Naranjo, 2000;
Schlosser et al.,
2001; Gerba
et al., 2008)
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
400 m3/d
MHMWTP
(Christen
et al., 2009)
3129
Name
Capacity/life
span
Costb
(US$)
Performancec
Maintenance
Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
Energy
requirement
References
Production
rate/fluxa
Household
ceramic
filter
0.04e0.3 L/min
Depends on
breakage
8e10/unit;
4e5/unit
of filter
replaced
2 to >4 LRV
bacteria;
2e6 LRV
protozoa;
1e2.3 LRV
virus
Scrubbing
N.R.
N.R.
Gravity
filtration
Katadyn Mini
Ceramic
0.2 mm ceramic
Ag-impregnated
0.5 L/min
7000
w2/L
1.7e4.9 LRV
of bacteria
Cleaning
of filter
Prefilter
None
Handpump
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
Upflow rapid
sand filter
N.R.
Pedal-powered
pumps
WaterBackpack 0.04 mm
membrane
(deadend)
50 L/h
10 y
0.0047 V/L
67% TC;
89% FC;
permeate
< 1 NTU
1 to >3 LRV
bacteria
Mesh sieve
N.R.
Gravity feed
(Frechen, 2011;
Frechen et al.,
2011)
Bicycle-powered UF membrane
UF
800 L/h
N.R.
N.R.
No
maintenance
or cleaning
(for <2 mth
operation)
Backwashing
by permeate
and/or CIP
N.R.
N.R.
Pedal-powered
(He, 2009)
Lifestraw
UF hollow fiber
membrane of
20 nm; cylinder
cartridge
(26 cm 30 cm)
8.6e12 L/h
w18,000 L
0.001/L
N.R.
Gravity feed
or mouth
suction
(Clasen et al.,
2009; LifeStraw,
Vestergaard)
Mobile water
maker
40 nm tubular
ceramic
membrane (UF)
w0.35 L/min
N.R.
N.R.
27 mm prefilter
and halogen
chamber (not
included during
microbial
assessment)
N.R.
Anodic
oxidation
Solar panel
(6 V) to power
anodic
oxidation and
hand-powered
bicycle pump
to pressurize
feed water to
4e6 bar
(Groendijk and
de Vries, 2009)
Permeate: <1
cfu/100 mL
and <1
bacteria
/mL; <1NTU
6e7 LRV
bacteria; 2e4.7
LRV virus;
3.6 LRV
protozoa
>5 LRV
bacteria;
effluent
<1 NTU;
0.2 mg/L of
chlorine
residual
Periodic
cleaning and
backwashing
Simple
flushing
without
chemicals
once daily
(Sobsey et al.,
2008; van
Halem et al.,
2007, 2009;
Murphy et al.,
2009; Berg,
2010; Brown
and Sobsey,
2010)
(Schlosser
et al., 2001;
Katadyn, 2011)
(McBean, 2009)
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Filter type
3130
PS UF capillary
membrane
(MWCO:
50,000 Da)
30e40 L/m2 h
(100e150 kPa)
>5 y
N.R.
AQUAPOT
Hollow fiber
PES membrane,
MWCO 150
kDa or PS spiral
wound module
of 100 kDa
(6.5 m2)
Hollow fiber UF
(outside-in) with
MWCO 100 kDa;
4 modules
(18 m2)
1000e2000 L/h
(0.3e0.4 MPa);
Operated at
2 h/d
Capital cost
of 28,000
N.R.
1000 L/h
(0.3e1 bar)
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
Flatsheet PES
with MWCO
100 kDa
(deadend)
0.04 mm PVDF
membrane
4e10 L/m2 h
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
400e1000 L/h
5e8 y
3500/unit;
0.35e0.50/
capita/
annum
0.2e0.3 L/min
(2e6% recovery)
N.R
N.R.
Permeate <0.1
NTU and
>4 LRV
particles of
size 2e5 mm
90% of total
As
Permeate <100
mg/L TDS
N.R.
Transport-able
UF system
Ultralow
pressure
UF
SkyHydrant
Bicycle-powered 60 cm2
polyaromatic
NF
flatsheet NF
(nominal salt
rejection of 99.6%)
Small-scale
RO module for
RO system
brackish water
desalination
0.01/L
85% NOM
removal;
>90% color
removal;
no FC in
effluent;
5 LRV
bacteria;
3e4 LRV virus
53. 6% turbidity
reduction;
100% TC and
TTC removal
Contact
column
100e150 kPa
provided by
feed pump or
use water
head;
recycle pump
powered by
electricity
(Pryor et al.,
1998)
Microfilter
cleaned daily,
sand filter
once a week,
UF CIP once a
week using
100 mg/L NaOCl
Backwashing
pressure at 2
bar at every 30 s
and a dose of
5 mg/L of
chlorine; CIP
use 200 mg/L
chlorine, 4 g/L
NaOH and 5 g/L
citric acid
None
Addition
of NaOCl
(1e2 mg/L)
0.3e0.4 MPa
pressure pump
driven by
diesel engine
(Arnal Arnal
et al., 2001;
Arnal et al.,
2004, 2007,
2008, 2009,
2010)
200 mm
prefilter
Chlorination
and postfiltered by 1
mm filter
0.6 kW
powered
by electricity
generator
(Barbot et al.,
2009)
None
None
40e66 mbar
(PeterVarbanets
et al., 2010)
Chlorine
dosage
Gravity feed
or suction
(Butler, 2009)
N.R.
N.R.
Pedal-powered
(0.2e0.7 MPa)
UV and AC
treatment
N.R.
3131
Need preoxidation
methods for
enhanced
As(III) removal
Three-step
filtration
(cartridge
prefilter, GAC
filter and 5 mm
cartridge) (SDI
of feed water
reduced to
0.8e1.5)
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Low pressure
UF
Name
Filter type
Production
rate/fluxa
Capacity/life
span
Costb
(US$)
Performancec
Maintenance
Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
Energy
requirement
References
NF or RO
membrane
0.7 L/min
N.R.
N.R.
Seawater and
brackish water
desalination
N.R.
UF
N.R.
Solar panel
PV-RO I
Two spiral
wound
seawater
membrane
modules in
parallel
Seawater RO
membrane
module
0.8e3 m3/d
(15% recovery)
N.R.
0.016/L
Seawater
desalination
Flushing using
permeate
water
N.R.
4.8 kWp PV
with additional
battery
storage of
60 kWh
20 years
0.04/L
Permeate <500
mg/L of TDS
N.R.
Two 1 mm
cartridge
filters,
antiscalant
(SDI of feed
water <1)
N.R.
N.R.
Mobile RO
demo
plant
installed
in bus
Skid-mounted
Brackish RO
plant
w73 m2 spiral
wound modules
for brackish
water
desalination
8 in. spiral
wound TFC low
pressure
membrane
(nominal salt
rejection 98%)
7e14 L/min
(27 bar); 50%
recovery
N.R.
N.R.
Permeate:
250e450 mg/L
N.R.
Sand filter
and acid and
antiscalant
addition
Decarbonation
(neutralization)
68.5 kWh
powered by PV
and back-up
diesel generator
Diesel generator
or electric power
supply
0.05 L/h
(15e25 bar);
60% recovery
N.R.
0.2/L
Backwashing
using
permeate
Chlorination
(1 mg/L)
Diesel generator
or electric power
supply
Wind-powered
RO system
Brackish
water RO
w9 L/h
(600e1100 kPa);
10% recovery
N.R.
10 000
w83% observed N.R.
(capital);
salt rejection
250e490
(expenditure)
Dual media
filter
(hydroanthracite
and fine sand),
5 mm cartridge
filter, H2SO4
(5 mg/L) and
antiscalant
(6 mg/L) and
sodium bisulfate
(2 mg/L)
5e10 mm
cartridge filter,
AC cartridge
(if organics are
present in feed)
N.R.
150 W powered
(Robinson
by wind pump and et al., 1992)
back-up diesel/
gasoline pump
PV-RO II
(Richards and
Schafer, 2002,
2003; Masson
et al., 2005;
Schafer et al.,
2005; Schafer
and Richards,
2005)
(Herold et al.,
1998;
Herold and
Neskakis, 2001)
(Tzen et al.,
1998)
(Shah et al.,
1988)
(Malik et al.,
1989)
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
ROSI
3132
Table 2 e (continued )
ROWPU
Mobile floating
desalination
plant (PCS)
Deadend RO
single pass or
double pass
(depending on
the quality of
feed water)
Seawater RO
membrane
N.R.
N.R.
Treats seawater, 4 h
brackish, NBC
maintenance
contaminated
water
50 mm selfecleaning Chlorination,
filter followed by
AC adsorption,
5 mm cartridge filter ion exchange
w2000 L/h;
35e45%
recovery
N.R.
N.R.
Effluent <500
mg/L salt
Backwashing of
media filters
with filtrate or
brine and air
scouring
10 d
(filter life)
w4/L; 64e
Recharge using
oral rehydration
syrup
150 L/d-10
m3/d
N.R.
0.015/L
Claimed to
be able to
reach 6-4-3
standards
99.5% salt
removal
(Lampe
et al., 1997)
Disinfectant,
acid, coagulant,
polyelectrolyte,
dual media filter,
fine filter,
dechlorination
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
(Banat et al.,
2007; Banat
and Jwaied,
2008; Fath
et al., 2008)
N.R.
Diesel generator
or electric power
supply (3.2
kWh/m3)
Equipped with
internal heat
recovery; PV
panel to run
feed pump and
5.73 m2 solar
collector to
heat up the feed
water (solar
thermal and
solar PV);
200e300 kWh/m3
(Bagwell et al.,
1994; Downing
et al., 1994;
Harris, 2000)
(Atkinson,
2006; Wallace
et al., 2008)
Note: N.R. Not reported; N.A. Not applicable; NBC Nuclear, biological and chemical contaminants; PES Polyethersulfone; PS Polysulfone; TFC Thin film composite; TMP Trans-membrane
pressure; CIP Clean in place; MWCO Molecular weight cut-off; SDI Silt density index.
a Water throughput may vary due to differences in the feed water quality and the frequency of maintenance employed.
b Cost is as reported in the reference.
c Performance may vary due to differences in the quality of water.
d Information cited is based on the reusable pouch (single use pouch is also available).
e Price for one unit of the filter pouch and ten charges of fresh draw solution.
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3133
3134
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Table 3 e Comparison of the strengths and weaknesses between key water technologies.
Major technologies
Strengths
Biosand filter
Pressure filter
Clarifier
Chlorination
Combined
coagulant-disinfectant
powder
Adsorption
Boiling
Thermal pasteurization
SODIS
UV disinfection
Solar stills
FO filtration bags
Membrane distillation
Weaknesses
Disinfection efficiency affected by turbidity;
long start-up time (filter ripening); low
throughput; require regular maintenance;
poor virus removal; no residual protection;
difficult for fast deployment
Requires regular maintenance; needs
replacement of filter media; prone to clogging;
not suitable for treatment of high turbidity water
Long start-up time; Need to use chemicals;
need skilled personnel to determine proper
coagulant dosage; potential disposal problem
No visible improvement in water quality;
potential taste problem; formation of DBPs;
disinfection efficacy affected by turbidity;
cryptosporidium unaffected by chlorination;
difficult to determine proper dosage
Need supply chain; multiple steps required for
treatment; may not have sufficient residual
protection; potential disposable problem
Needs frequent replacement; not effective for
microbial removal; expensive
No residual protection; costly due to use of fuel;
lack of epidemiological confirmed health impact;
incomplete treatment if users do not bring
it to a boil
No residual protection; Chulli tends to break
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3135
3.1.2.2. Chlorination. Halogens such as chlorine are inexpensive, easily available in several forms, and can treat large
volumes of water (Backer, 2008). They can be used at both the
community and household levels. Chlorination using sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) was found to improve stored water
quality after the Indonesian tsunami (Gupta et al., 2007).
Chlorine in tablet form such as sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaC3N3O3Cl2 abbreviated as NaDCC) is widely
used in emergencies and offers advantages such as better
stability, safety, low capital investment, convenience due to
its single use packaging and lightweight when compared to
NaOCl (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006; Lantagne et al., 2010).
Tablets also have longer shelf life and lower transportation
cost than liquid chlorine (Berg, 2010). McLennan et al. (2009)
compared four types of POUs for emergency disinfection and
found that only NaDCC tablets could provide sufficient residuals for safe storage.
Innovative technologies that use water insoluble polymeric
beads that release halogen when in contact with microbes are
available (Chen et al., 2003; Mazumdar et al., 2010). The
disinfection mechanism is probably a diffusion-induced
release of halogen. These biocidal beads can be integrated
into filtration trains for controlled flow rates and predictable
performance. Nevertheless, NaDCC tablets might be the
preferred chlorination technology because they are easier to
handle and allow rapid deployment in acute emergencies.
Chlorine dose depends on factors such as temperature,
turbidity, presence of NOMs (natural organic matters), and the
type of bacteria/viruses (LeChevallier et al., 1981; Feachem
et al., 1983; Abbaszadegan et al., 1997). The disinfectant
capability of NaDCC tablets has been shown (Clasen et al.,
2007; Jain et al., 2010). They were reported to reduce diarrheal risks by 48% in Zambia. However in a recent epidemiological study in Ghana, no significant reduction in diarrheal
3136
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Fig. 1 e Schematic diagram of the upflow clarifier (modified from Dorea et al. (2009)).
risk was associated with using NaDCC tablets (Jain et al., 2010).
These conflicting findings regarding diarrheal reduction could
be attributed to different levels of water contamination. A
disadvantage of using chlorination is the formation of harmful DBPs. Chloroform levels as high as 84 mg/L and 90 mg/L were
detected when river water was subjected to chlorination by
NaOCl and NaDCC tablets, respectively (Lantagne et al., 2008,
2010).
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3137
3.1.3.4. UV disinfection. UV disinfection of water uses ultraviolet light in the germicidal wavelength range on a batch basis
(Berg, 2010). Berg (2010) discusses a portable POU (point-of-use)
UV unit (called UV007) for disinfecting 2.5e20 L of water using
either a hand crank, bicycle or electrical power. It can be used
at the household level. It was capable of deactivating >2.3 LRV
of MS-2 coliphage under 60e75% transmittance within
a minute depending on the penetration depth. The main
challenge with UV systems is that their performance is
affected by turbidity. However, they can be coupled to prefilters to improve light transmittance and enhance their
performance (Gadgil et al., 1998). They are appropriate only for
acute applications when coupled to other WTs.
3.1.3.5. Solar distillation. The simplest most commonly used
solar distillation technology is the single effect still
(Aboabboud et al., 1997). It uses direct solar radiation for
desalination (Bouchekima et al., 1998). It is ideal for applications in remote areas such as refugee camps where the water
demand is less than 50 m3/d (Bouchekima et al., 1998). The
cost for desalination using a solar still is 0.0024e0.02 US$/L
(Madani and Zaki, 1995; Ghoneyem and Ileri, 1997), which is
less than all other WTs at this scale (Hanson et al., 2004). Fig. 2
shows the typical design and summarizes the processes that
take place in a solar still.
Solar stills are reported to be successful in removing nonvolatile contaminants and bacteria if care is taken to avoid
contamination from the raw water source (Qiblawey and
Banat, 2008). However, solar stills had mixed success insofar
3138
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Fig. 2 e Summary of processes taking place in a solar still (modified from Tiwari et al. (2003)).
as the removal of volatile organic compounds such as pesticides (Hanson et al., 2004). Detailed reviews of solar stills and
factors affecting their performance are available (Tiwari et al.,
2003; Kaushal and Varun, 2010; Sampathkumar et al., 2010;
Kabeel and El-Agouz, 2011; Velmurugan and Srithar, 2011).
A portable pyramidal still made from poly(vinyl chloride) has
been designed that is capable of delivering 0.5 L/d at a cost of
0.046/L (Wassouf et al., 2011). However, due to their low
productivity, they solar stills are suitable for individual use
only. Hence, they are practical only for applications when the
affected area has intense solar radiation and no fresh water
supply.
3.1.4.
3.2.
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3139
modules known as IGW pumps for decentralized and emergency use in Indonesia.
3140
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
4.
Water technology selection for emergency
relief
Providing drinking water is the most challenging aspect of an
emergency response for which there is no panacea. Due to the
varying scenarios for different disasters, it is impractical to
adopt the same solution for every disaster. The WT selection
process is not straightforward. It depends on the emergency
characteristics, source water quality, and the technical
aspects of the WT. A major consideration is readily available
4.1.
Establishment of criteria and evaluation of water
technologies
Several sets of criteria for evaluation of emergency WTs have
been proposed. Quinn (1997) suggested that the criteria set
should include the speed of deployment, quantity and quality
of treated water, and the cost of the treatment unit. Steele and
Clarke (2008) suggested that the criteria should not be limited
only to the performance-related characteristics, but should
include the emergency characteristics. They suggested the
criteria set should include the throughput, quality improvement, reliability, maintenance required, rate and ease of
deployment, capital and operational costs, system
complexity, required operator skill and knowledge, and the
required consumables. Clarke and Steele (2009) speculated
that the evaluation criteria of WTs used by relief agencies
include their versatility to treat a wide range of feed water,
durability and reliability of operation, costs and size, ability to
meet water demand and quality, ease of deployment, and ease
of operation and maintenance.
The above review suggests that the criteria set used to
evaluate the appropriateness of a WT for a given emergency
include the throughput, performance, capital and operating
costs, ease of use and deployment, and the required maintenance. However, there are several important criteria missing.
One criterion is the energy requirement that is highly relevant
in WT evaluation for emergency relief since access to electrical power is usually absent after a disaster. In addition,
potential acceptance by the AP should also be considered
because there are reported failures of WTs due to a lack of
social acceptance. Environmental impact and the supply
chain requirement of the WT should be also included. Hence,
a new criteria set is proposed and redefined in Table 4. The
scoring system will be used as a basis in developing the
decision matrix that will be discussed in the following section.
4.2.
Table 4 e Criteria used for evaluation of water technologies and their definition of scores.
Evaluation criteria
Definition of scores
1
Costs
Ease of deployment
Ease of use
Maintenance
Performance
Potential acceptance
Energy requirement
Supply chain
requirement
Water throughput
Complicated maintenance;
done regularly;
time-consuming
Modest microbes removal;
treatment performance is
affected by variations in
source water quality;
cannot remove turbidity
Complicated maintenance;
done regularly; not
time-consuming
Modest microbes removal;
treatment performance is
affected by variations in
source water quality; can
remove turbidity
Slightly complicated
activities; done regularly;
not time-consuming
Excellent microbes removal;
treatment performance
is not affected by variations
in source water quality;
cannot remove turbidity
No visual improvement of
treated water; treated water
may have objectionable
taste; may produce harmful
byproducts or does
not produce pure water but
a sweetened drink
Uses large amount of energy
and cannot be
powered by renewable energy
Require continuous supply
of consumables;
consumables are only
available from specific
vendors
Very low yield (<3 L/d)
No visual improvement
of treated water; no
objectionable taste
Visual improvement of
treated water; involve
addition of chemicals into
water which may not be
acceptable to some users;
no objectionable taste
Produce environmentally
malign byproducts; mild
effect; small quantity
Moderate yield
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Environmental
impact
No power requirement
(gravity fed or mouth suction)
No supply chain required
3141
3142
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
START
Step 1:
Identification of feasible WTs for the site of interest
(Fig. 5)
Step 2:
Assignment of weighting factors for each criterion
based on a 3-point scale by considering the local
conditions (Table 5)
Step 3:
Assessment and scoring of feasible WTs on a 5point scale by means of a decision matrix (Table 5).
The scoring of WTs is guided by a pre-defined
scoring system (Table 4)
Step 4:
Determination of the total weighted scores and
ranking of water technologies. The total weighted
score of each WT is computed based on equation 1
Yes
Step 5:
Would any slight change
in the scores or weighting
factors result in change of
the ranking?
Step 6:
Identification of the most favorable WT (the WT
with the highest weighted score)
Step 7:
Do the local users have the capability to operate the
Step 8:
WT chosen?
Eliminate the
Factors to consider:
previously chosen
No The presence of supply chain;
WT from the list of
The availability of funding, materials and
feasible water
equipment required;
technologies
Compliance with social, cultural and
political factors
Yes
Implement
Fig. 4 e Flow chart summarizing the water technology selection process.
No
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3143
5.
Concluding remarks and
recommendations
In recent decades, there has been an increasing frequency and
intensity of global disasters. Access to safe drinking water is one
3144
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Acknowledgments
This project was carried out in the Singapore Membrane
Technology Centre at Nanyang Technological University
(NTU) that is supported by the Economic Development Board
of Singapore. S.-L. Loo acknowledges NTU for a PhD research
scholarship award. The authors are grateful to Dr. Adrian Yeo,
Mr. Rhett Butler, Prof. Linggam Pillay, Prof. I.G. Wenten, and
Mr. Leong Kwok-Yii for their comments on this paper.
references
3145
3146
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Chen, Y., Worley, S.D., Kim, J., Wei, C.-I., Chen, T.-Y., Santiago, J.I.,
Williams, J.F., Sun, G., 2003. Biocidal poly(styrenehydantoin)
beads for disinfection water. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 42, 280e284.
Christen, A., Navarro, C.M., Mausezahl, D., 2009. Safe drinking
water and clean air: an experimental study evaluating the
concept of combining household water treatment and indoor
air improvement using the Water Disinfection Stove (WADIS).
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
212, 562e568.
Clarke, B.A., Steele, A., 2009. Water treatment systems for relief
agencies: the on-going search for the Silver Bullet.
Desalination 248, 64e71.
Clasen, T., Boisson, S., 2006. Household-based ceramic water
filters for the treatment of drinking water in disaster response:
an assessment of a pilot programme in the Dominican
Republic. Water Practice and Technology 1.
Clasen, T., Brown, J., Collin, S., Suntura, O., Cairncross, S., 2004.
Reducing diarrhea through the use of household-based
ceramic water filters: a randomized, controlled trial in rural
Bolivia. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene 70, 651e657.
Clasen, T., Edmondson, P., 2006. Sodium dichloroisocyanurate
(NaDCC) tablets as an alternative to sodium hypochlorite for
the routine treatment of drinking water at the household
level. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental
Health 209, 173e181.
Clasen, T., McLaughlin, C., Nayaar, N., Boisson, S., Gupta, R.,
Desai, D., Shah, N., 2008a. Microbiological effectiveness and
cost of disinfecting water by boiling in semi-urban India. The
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 79,
407e413.
Clasen, T., Naranjo, J., Frauchiger, D., Gerba, C., 2009. Laboratory
assessment of a gravity-fed ultrafiltration water treatment
device designed for household use in low-income settings.
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 80,
819e823.
Clasen, T., Saeed, T.F., Boisson, S., Edmondson, P., Shipin, O.,
2007. Household water treatment using sodium
dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) tablets: a randomized,
controlled trial to assess microbiological effectiveness in
Bangladesh. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene 76, 187e192.
Clasen, T.F., Cairncross, S., 2004. Editorial: household water
management: refining the dominant paradigm. Tropical
Medicine and International Health 9, 187e191.
Clasen, T.F., Thao do, H., Boisson, S., Shipin, O., 2008b.
Microbiological effectiveness and cost of boiling to disinfect
drinking water in rural Vietnam. Environmental Science and
Technology 42, 4255e4260.
Cohen, D., Ross, C., 2004. Mixing Moves Osmosis Forward.
Chemical Processing Magazine October, 29e32. Available
from: http://www.mixers.com/pdf/Chemical-ProcessingHydration-Technologies.pdf.
Colindres, R.E., Jain, S., Bowen, A., Domond, P., Mintz, E., 2007.
After the flood: an evaluation of in-home drinking water
treatment with combined flocculent-disinfectant following
Tropical Storm Jeanne e Gonaives, Haiti, 2004. Journal of
Water and Health 5, 367e374.
Conroy, R., Meegan, M.E., Joyce, T., McGuigan, K., Barnes, J., 1999.
Solar disinfection of water reduces diarrhoeal disease: an
update. Archives of Disease in Childhood 81, 337e338.
Conroy, R.M., Elmore-Meegan, M., Joyce, T., McGuigan, K.G.,
Barnes, J., 1996. Solar disinfection of drinking water and
diarrhoea in Maasai children: a controlled field trial. The
Lancet 348, 1695e1697.
Crump, J.A., Otieno, P.O., Slutsker, L., Keswick, B.H., Rosen, D.H.,
Hoekstra, R.M., Vulule, J.M., Luby, S.P., 2005. Household based
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3147
3148
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
3149
3150
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 3 1 2 5 e3 1 5 1
Wei, C., Lin, W.Y., Zainal, Z., Williams, N.E., Zhu, K., Kruzic, A.P.,
Smith, R.L., Rajeshwar, K., 1994. Bactericidal activity of TiO2
photocatalyst in aqueous media: toward a solar-assisted
water disinfection system. Environmental Science and
Technology 28, 934e938.
Wenten, I.G, 2010. Presentation at SMTC Workshop, Water
Technology for Difficult Circumstances, 28 June 2010,
3151