Cranfield University - ENGEES

Cranfield UniversitySchool of Applied SciencesMSc. Water Management, Option: Community Water SupplyAcademic Year 2007/2008Héloïse HubertAssessment of the issue, technologies and protocols for waterquality, especially arsenic, in Ballia district of Uttar Pradesh,IndiaSupervisor: Dr. James WebsterSeptember 2008This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for thedegree of Master of Science© Cranfield University 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner.

ABSTRACTArsenic contamination of groundwater was revealed in 2003 in Ballia district of UttarPradesh. Chronic arsenic poisoning provokes health problems from skin lesions tocancer, which makes it a serious public health issue. Therefore, following arsenictesting campaign, mitigation measures have been implemented by the state governmentto address the problem: deep hand pumps have been drilled for the most contaminatedhouseholds and two villages surveyed have received filters from outside organizations.Piped water systems are planned in the next years as long-term solution. Yet, currentlymost affected people are still excluded from this programme. Hence, further mediumterm measures are needed to bridge the gap until the government action plan reaches itsobjectives.Since October 2007, WaterAid has started a project to reduce the health impact ofarsenic in Ballia. This thesis aimed to recommend mitigation measures suitable for thecontext of Ballia district to WaterAid.The research was carried out in seven villages of the district using semi-structuredinterviews. It concludes that hand pumps, contaminated or not, constitute the mainsource of water for the population. Although people know about the presence of arsenicin their water sources, water was generally not treated before consumption because of alack of means and knowledge about arsenicosis. Nevertheless, people would like to takepart in a project and they would agree to pay depending on their incomes.In this context, awareness programmes constitutes the first priority to assure theinvolvement of the population. According to the results, the arsenic mitigation requiredin the area should satisfied the following criteria: low and easy operation andmaintenance, efficiency, rapidity of treatment, use of local materials, limited use ofchemicals, low costs and implementation at the household level. Consequently,household sand filters have been judged the most suitable solution in the currentsituation.Cranfield University iHéloïse Hubert, 2008

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Global issueAccess to safe drinking water is one of the key targets of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals 1 defined by the United Nations in 2000. Yet, successful drinking water qualitymanagement is still a challenge for many countries.In low income countries, diarrhoeal diseases kill 1.8 million of people each year (WHO,2004) whereas chemical hazards impact morbidity mostly. That is why the priority isoften given to improve microbiological water quality over chemical water quality.Hence, the use of safe and low cost groundwater resources is habitually preferred tosurface water.However, chemical pollution can also represent a major danger for human health insome regions. High arsenic concentrations in groundwater were first discovered in theearly 1980s in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India (Chakraborti et al., 2003). Arseniccontamination of groundwater occurs naturally due to the hydrogeochemical conditionsof the Ganges plain, but the cause of its discharge from sediment to groundwater is stilldebated (World Bank and WSP 2 , 2005b).Since then, it has been proven that high arsenic concentrations cause health problemssuch as skin lesions, cardiovascular disease and cancer in contaminated areas.Once the arsenic problem is identified, mitigation strategies are required to limit theimpacts on health. Yet, despite the knowledge about arsenic acquired in the last decade,arsenic contamination remains a current problem that communities, governments,international organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) have toaddress. Moreover, groundwater depletion due to over-exploitation increases the risksof contamination (Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, 2008).1 MDG 7, Target 7.C: ‘Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safedrinking water and basic sanitation.’ United Nations, 2000.2 WSP : Water and Sanitation ProgramCranfield University 1Héloïse Hubert, 2008

1.2 Indian CaseIn India, first groundwater arsenic contamination was discovered in 1976 in Chandigarhand different villages of Punjab (Mukherjee et al., 2006) then in 1983 in West Bengal(Chakraborti et al., 2003). However, through lack of data, the problem was for longconsidered occasional and specific to the Ganges Delta. It started to draw the attentionof the government and international organizations only since 1995, with theInternational Conference on Arsenic in Groundwater in Calcutta which highlighted thegeographic expansion of arsenic contamination and the growth of arsenic patients (ibid).In 2003, the School of Environmental Studies, JadavpurUniversity reported arsenic from twice to eight timesgreater than the Indian drinking water standard of 50 µg/L,in several villages of Ballia, Ghazipur and Varanasidistricts of Uttar Pradesh (WaterAid, 2007). Therefore,according to Khurana and Sen (2008), about 10 millionpeople would be at risk in the country.Figure 1.1 Maps of Ganges – Brahmaputra Plain (Chine Informations, 2008)Cranfield University 2Héloïse Hubert, 2008

BALLIAFigure 1.2 Map of Uttar Pradesh, India (Maps of India, 2008a)1.3 Aim and Objectives of the projectTo address the problem with effective mitigation strategies, more information onarsenic extent, causes and proven remedial interventions are needed. Since October2007, the British NGO WaterAid has been developing a project in Ballia district ofUttar Pradesh in consultation with UP Jal Nigam 3 , King George Medical College,Lucknow and Indian Toxilogical Research Centre (ITRC), Lucknow. While theseinstitutions are in charge of the technical, clinical and epidemiological aspects of theprogram, WaterAid shall work on social and community mobilization aspects of theproject (WaterAid, 2007).WaterAid’s project has several objectives:1. To assess the level of arsenic in groundwater in the district and its impact inpeoples lives;3 UP Jal Nigam is the state government agency responsible for water supply and sanitation in the urbanand rural areas of Uttar Pradesh.Cranfield University 3Héloïse Hubert, 2008

2. To significantly reduce the quantity of arsenic ingested;3. To create a good database through Management Information System (MIS) andGeographic Information System (GIS) on arsenic contamination and mitigation;4. To increase access to a sustainable safe water supply; and5. To create a community management structure for Operation & Maintenance(O&M) of schemes implemented and regular water quality check.This thesis was part of the second objective which implied the promotion of mitigationmeasures.Hence the research consisted of the assessment of the issue, technologies and protocolsfor water quality, especially arsenic, in seven villages in Ballia district of Uttar Pradesh.The aim of the research was therefore to advise WaterAid about the most suitablemitigation measures conceivable in the seven villages studied in Ballia district.To achieve it, the following objectives needed to be realized:1. Assess the status of the water supply (sources of water, uses, water quality andmonitoring arrangements, existing mitigation measures) in seven villages of Balliadistrict;2. Review interventions to date by all agencies in Ballia district;3. Compare the efficacy of household and community level models;4. Assess the community perception and awareness of arsenicosis and their willingnessto modify behaviour and to pay for mitigation measures.These objectives are achieved in this thesis through the following structure:- Literature review: this partially achieved objectives 2 and 3;- Methodology: partially objectives 1, 2 and 4;- Results and Discussion: fully objectives 1, 2 and 4, partially objective 3;- Conclusion; and- Recommendations: fully objective 3.Cranfield University 4Héloïse Hubert, 2008

2. LITERATURE REVIEWIn order to partially fulfil the objectives 2 and 3, this chapter presents a summary of thecurrent knowledge about arsenic, the main existing arsenic mitigation measures and thebackground of the project in Ballia district.2.1 Presence of arsenic in groundwaterThe origin, chemical characteristics and impacts of arsenic on health are considered inthe following part.2.1.1 OriginArsenic constitutes the 29 th most abundant element of the earth’ crust (Singh, 2006). Itsorigin in groundwater results naturally of the dissolution or desorption from mineralsand rocks in the aquifer. It normally occurs with concentrations in the order ofmagnitude of 1 µg/L but the amount of arsenic can be higher in shallow aquiferscomposed of young sediments, what is the case in India (World Bank and WSP, 2005a).Moreover, in accordance with the hydrogeological conditions, arsenic concentration canvary locally in space and depth within the aquifer.Anthropogenic activities such as mining, the disposal of industrial waste or the use ofarsenical pesticides or fertilizers are other potential sources of contamination of the soiland groundwater environment. Even if most researchers consider that arsenic occursnaturally in the Ganges river basin, the impact of these anthropogenic sources on arseniccontamination is still unknown (Charlet and Polya, 2006).2.1.2 Different types of arsenicArsenic in the natural environment occurs under various forms:- Inorganic arsenic is generally present either as arsenite As (III) or arsenate As (V).Oxidation allows changing As (III), stable in reducing conditions, in As (V), the stableform in oxidized aqueous solutions (O’Day, 2006). The toxicity, the solubility and themobility of arsenite is higher than arsenate (Nriagu, 1994). Both inorganic forms can beuptake or released with oxidants (e.g. iron) to create compounds in accordance with theCranfield University 5Héloïse Hubert, 2008

type and amount of components of the soil, the pH, the redox potential and thebiological activity (ibid).- Organic arsenic is widely spread in living organisms under the form of organoarseniccompounds. Arsenic chemistry is then very similar to phosphorus or nitrogen (O’Day,2006).2.1.3 Why remove arsenicArsenic chronic poisoning, or arsenicosis, is the 2 nd cause of health-related problem dueto a naturally occurring chemical constituent of groundwater, after fluoride (Ahsan,2002). The effects of arsenicosis appear after a long period from 5 to 20 years. Mainvisible symptoms are painful skin lesionsincluding melanosis, hyper-keratosis or inextreme case, skin cancer. Internaldisorders are also linked to arsenicconsumption: cancer (kidney, liver),cardiovascular diseases, peripheralvascular disorders, respiratory problems,diabetes and reproductive effects (WHO,2001).Subject from Chain Chhapra village witharsenical skin lesionsThe impact on health depends on several parameters like the amount of arsenic ingested,the duration of exposure, the diet, the age and sex of the affected people. The largenumber of people affected by the problem has led Smith et al. (2000) to describe it as“the greatest mass poisoning in human history”.Moreover, the social impact of arsenicosis can be significant. It has been observedduring the survey that people suffering of arsenicosis face difficulties to find a job or toget married.Nevertheless, only the ingestion of arsenic infected water is dangerous for health. Thecontact with contaminated water for other activities such as hand-washing, bathing andlaundry is without risk (WHO, 2001).Because of its carcinogenic nature, since 1993, the WHO guideline value for arsenic indrinking water has been 10 µg/L. However in India like in most developing countries,Cranfield University 6Héloïse Hubert, 2008

the national standard is still equal to the former WHO recommended concentration of50 µg/L. This is notably due to economic concerns and the lack of sophisticatedequipments to measure lower concentrations (World Bank and WSP, 2005b).2.1.4 Arsenic mitigation measuresIn case of arsenic contamination of the drinking water supply, two options are possibleto make it safer:- using alternative arsenic-free water sources. It implies that the new sources are alsomicrobiologically safe and free from any chemical contaminants (ibid). Resorting toarsenic-free aquifer, surface water or rainwater harvesting constitutes a potentialalternative.- removing arsenic from the groundwater source. This solution is preferred when thereare no sustainable exploitable alternatives sources from an environmental, technical andeconomic point of view (Johnston et al., 2001). In this case, arsenic removaltechnologies (ART) can be designed for the household level or the community level.2.2 Arsenic removal techniquesIn 2001, Ahmed has given a description of the main arsenic mitigation technologies,which has since been used as a major reference by the World Bank and the governmentof India. Much of the following description summarises Ahmed’s work.2.2.1 Principle of the removalArsenic removal technologies require basic treatment processes: oxidation,sedimentation, precipitation-coagulation, adsorption, sorptive filtration, ion exchangeand membranes techniques (World Bank and WSP, 2005b). Given As (III) is moredifficult than As (V) to remove from water, most treatment method start with oxidationof As (III) to As (V) to increase their efficacy (Ahmed, 2001).Cranfield University 7Héloïse Hubert, 2008

- Bucket treatment unit (BTU)It is made of two buckets placed one above the other. The top bucket is used to mixchemicals with arsenic-contaminated water. Then the water is filtered through a sandfilter in the lower bucket (cf. figure 2.1).Figure 2.1 Double bucket household arsenic treatment unit (Ali et al., 2001)This technology has been developed by the DPHE-Danida project in rural areas inBangladesh. When it is operated correctly, the results are satisfactory what make a goodpotential solution to remove arsenic at household level at low cost and with localmaterials (Ahmed, 2001).- Stevens Institute technologyThis technology is very similar to BTU (cf. figure 2.2). Nevertheless the transfer ofchemical mixed water has to be done manually from one bucket to the other, what canbe difficult for weak people and increase the contact with chemicals and the risk ofwater lost. The second inner slits on the sides of the second bucket help thesedimentation (ibid). Regular washing of the sand bed is required to keep resultseffective.Figure 2.2 Stevens Institute technology (World Bank and WSP, 2005b)Cranfield University 9Héloïse Hubert, 2008

- BCSIR Filter UnitDeveloped by the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR),this technology uses the same process than the previous one, but at a higher level.Buckets are replaced by tanks of hundreds litres and oxidants and coagulants aremechanically mixed with water. Fill and Draw arsenic removal unit is meant for groupsof families or public institutions (Ahmed, 2001).- Arsenic removal unit attached to tube wellThis technology has been developed at community level in West Bengal, India. Sodiumhypochloride and aluminum alum are added to remove 90% arsenic (ibid).- Naturally occurring ironIron often coexists with arsenic in groundwater and needs to be treated too. It is hasbeen shown effective in small and medium treatment plant to use the iron precipitatesflocs formed in oxic conditions to adsorb arsenic (ibid). Afterwards, the particles arefiltered on a sand bed. The washing of the filter bed is the main condition to ensure theremoval of half to four fifth of arsenic (World Bank and WSP, 2005b).2.2.4 Sorptive filtration mediaMany sorptive media, natural or synthetic, can be used to treat arsenic-contaminatedwater. Their efficiency depends on the sorption affinity of the medium to arsenic, thesaturation capacity of the fixed-bed by different contaminants and the need of pretreatmentor not to help the adsorption of arsenic (Ahmed, 2001).Activated alumina is often chosen because it is simple to operate. Indeed regeneration isrequired only over one to three months. Nevertheless, contrary to granular ferrichydroxide, iron coated sand or Read-F arsenic removal unit, it does not remove As (III)(Nriagu, 1994).Many adsorbent filters, including ion exchange resins, have been test in the field by thedifferent manufacturers. They generally give good results to remove arsenic butoperation and maintenance are more or less easy in the long-term (World Bank andWSP, 2005b).Cranfield University 10Héloïse Hubert, 2008

2.2.5 Membrane techniquesMembrane techniques allow removing many contaminants including arsenic withefficiency because the removal rates are over 90% (ibid). However, the risks ofmembrane fouling are high with the presence of suspended solids or iron andmanganese. Moreover, most membranes do not resist oxidizing agent, but arsenicremoval is more efficient if it is in pentavalent form (Ahmed, 2001). In addition, thedisposal of the highly concentrated water rejection can be an issue notably in waterscarceareas (World Bank and WSP, 2005b). Despite improvements in the last decade,the major drawback of these techniques remains the high capital and operational cost(Ahmed, 2001).Nevertheless, few low-pressure nanofiltration and reverse osmosis units have beensuccessfully tested in Bangladesh (World Bank and WSP, 2005b).2.3 Arsenic contamination in Ballia districtBallia district is situated in the easternmost part of Uttar Pradesh, the most populousstate of the country. It is divided into 17 Development Blocks on 3,168km² and the totalpopulation is 2.7 million. This district is characterized by high poverty (44% of poorpeople), low literacy rate (58%) and high gender disparity (DOVSWS and PGCS 4 ,2007). Agriculture remains the main activity for 72% of the population (ibid).4 Diocese of Varanasi Social Welfare Society and Purvanchal Gramin Chetna SamitiCranfield University 11Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Area ofthe studyFigure 2.3 Map of Ballia District of Uttar Pradesh (Maps of India, 2008b)Arsenic contamination in Ballia district is judged as grave as in West Bengal with 1,122hand pumps (HP) out of 10,151 tested, reported to be contaminated with arsenicexceeding 50 µg/l (WaterAid, 2007).Since 2004, UP Jal Nigam has initiated an action plan with support of UNICEF toaddress the problem. First, screening testing have been realised using Field Test Kits(FTK) to identify the arsenic ‘hotspot’ villages in the district. Then more accuratetesting, using spectrophotometers, have been conducted in affected area and handpumps reported to have arsenic above 50 µg/L have been marked red (UP Jal Nigam,2008).As a short to medium term measure, 251 deeper India Mark II hand pumps, beyond 70-100 m below ground level, judged arsenic-free, have been implemented, in the mostaffected area. Moreover, 15 Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) systems, 15 dug wells and170 domestic filters have been set up (ibid). In the next years, the implementation ofseven piped water supply scheme using water from the rivers Ganges and Ghaghra isplanned (UP Jal Nigam, 2008).In addition to the lack of mitigation measures, the lack of knowledge of thecommunities about arsenic poisoning is a major issue in the district. UNICEF hasconducted awareness campaigns in some villages to explain the danger of arsenictoxicity but according to WaterAid (2007), in the most effected area, people are stillignorant about the exact nature and extent of the contamination.Cranfield University 12Héloïse Hubert, 2008

This chapter has reviewed the current knowledge about arsenic: its origin, types andeffects on health as well as the existing mitigation measures, before presenting thecontext of arsenic contamination problem in Ballia district. The objectives 2 and 3 arethus partially fulfilled. The next chapters will focus more in details on the situation inBallia district.Cranfield University 13Héloïse Hubert, 2008

3. METHODOLOGYSeven villages of the Ballia district have been visited during two weeks, in cooperationwith WaterAid India and the Diocese of Varanasi. This chapter presents the methodused during the fieldwork to fulfil the objectives 1, 2 and 4.3.1 Theoretical aspect of methodologyAccording to Neuman (1999), four dimensions describe social research: the purpose ofthe study, its use, its time dimension and the data collection techniques used.3.1.1 Purpose of the researchFollowing the objectives 1, 2 and 4 this study aimed to review existing arsenic removaltechnologies and their perception and awareness by the community. Thus, because itanswered the questions “What is the current situation?” it was a descriptive piece ofresearch, according to Neuman (1999). However, presenting a picture was not enoughto get a complete assessment. That is why explanatory work was also required toexplain what was already known (cf. figure 3.1).Purpose of researchExploratory‘What is it about?’Descriptive‘How did it happen?’Explanatory‘Why did it happen?’Figure 3.1 Purpose of a research (Neuman, 1999)3.1.2 Use of the researchThe thesis took part at the beginning of a project conducted by WaterAid in the field.Moreover it involved the assessment of previous experience in arsenic removal. So,according to Neuman (1999), it was clearly used for applied research (cf. figure 3.2).Cranfield University 14Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Use of researchBasic researchApplied researchFigure 3.2 Use of a research (Neuman, 1999)3.1.3 Time dimension of the studyThe field work aimed to collect data about few villages to compare them in accordancewith several criteria (e.g. water practices and awareness toward arsenicosis). So, in termof time dimension, it was a case study approach (cf. figure 3.3). Previous water qualitydata were provided but it was not possible to test water quality during the survey. So alongitudinal approach was not possible to compare feature at more than one time.Time dimensionCross-sectional Longitudinal Case studyFigure 3.3 Time dimension (Neuman, 1999)3.1.4 Data collection techniquesBoth qualitative and quantitative data were required to realize an effective evaluation ofthe ART. Quantitative data (e.g. arsenic concentration in water) were available inprevious government reports but the collection of further updated data (e.g. number ofopen wells in the villages) was necessary in the field to complete the study. Qualitativedata were the main source of information to review community perception andawareness. They were collected in the field during the survey using semi-structuredinterviews. The reasons for choosing semi-structured interviews are discussed in section3.3.2.Cranfield University 15Héloïse Hubert, 2008

3.2 Study design and evolutionA flexible design research approach was considered to allow evolution during the study.Table 3.1 Evolution of the aims and objectives with associated methodologyDate Aim Objectives Methodology28 April –10 June10 June –10 July10 July –29 August29 August– 3September- AdviseWaterAid aboutthe most suitablemitigationmeasuresconceivable inBallia district(Uttar Pradesh).- AdviseWaterAid aboutthe most suitablemitigationmeasuresconceivable in 7villages of Balliadistrict (UttarPradesh).1. Understand the issue,technologies and protocols forwater quality, especially arsenicin several villages in the Balliadistrict of Uttar Pradesh.2. Review interventions to dateby all agencies in Ballia district;3. Compare the efficacy ofhousehold and community levelmodels;4. Assess the communityperception and awareness ofarsenicosis; and5. Carrying out pilot tests of anew filter in the villages.1. Assess the status of the watersupply (sources of water, uses,water quality and monitoringarrangements, existingmitigation measures) in 7villages of Ballia district;2. Review interventions to dateby all agencies in Ballia district;3. Compare the efficacy ofhousehold and community levelmodels; and4. Assess the communityperception and awareness ofarsenicosis and their willingnessto modify behaviour and to payfor mitigation measures.Planning anddesign:- Preliminaryliterature review- Development ofsemi-structuredquestionnairesFieldwork:- Interviews- ObservationData analysis:- Results anddiscussion- RecommendationsPresenting findings:- Discussing andfinalising the report- Oral presentationCranfield University 16Héloïse Hubert, 2008

3.3 Practical aspects of methodologyThis part considers the method used to gather the data in the field: the sampling plan,the schedule of questions, the sources of information and the tools used.3.3.1 Sampling Plan- Selection of the blocksArsenic is above all a public health issue that is why the number of people affected byarsenic has been the first criteria to select the eight most affected block of Ballia district(cf. table 3.2).Table 3.2 Blocks of Ballia District affected by arsenic and their populationName of theblockBlock’spopulation in2001Affectedpopulation byarsenic in 2004Percentageof affectedpopulation1 Reoti 124,893 48,475 38.8%2 Bairiya 153,413 41,475 27.0%3 Belahri 109,990 32,900 29.9%4 Dubhad 149,361 28,000 18.7%5 Murli Chhapra 130,427 22,400 17.2%6 Maniyar 119,880 11,800 9.8%7 Bansdih 131,694 5,401 4.1%8 Sohaon 129,966 4,400 3.4%- Selection of the villagesIn the selected blocks, the aim was to select the villages where arsenic concentrationwas the highest. Details of the arsenic concentration of the hand pumps before and afterthe drilling of deep HP were provided by UP Jal Nigam (2004). According to this data,the villages of Chain Chhapra, Haldi and Rikni Chhapra in the Belhari block have beenchosen, because arsenic concentration was still above 10 µg/L in the deep bored IndiaMark-II HP.In the other blocks, maximum arsenic concentration was equal to 10 µg/L after theimplementation of mitigation measures, what has been the criterion of selection forDalan Chhapra, Gai Ghat and Kotwan.The village of Ekauna has been selected because it was known that UNICEF hadalready implemented ART and realised awareness campaign there. Thus the selection ofCranfield University 17Héloïse Hubert, 2008

this village was an opportunity to assess existing mitigation measures and their use andacceptance by the community.Table 3.3 Villages selected for the study and their selection criteriaBlock Gram Panchayat Village Criteria for selectionBallia districtBelhari Bajaraha Chain Chhapra [As] deep HP = 20 µg/LBelhari Haldi Haldi [As] deep HP = 20 µg/LBelhari Gangapur Rikni Chhapra [As] deep HP = 20 µg/LMurli Chhapra Dalan Chhapra Dalan Chhapra [As] deep HP = 10 µg/LReoti Gai Ghat Gai Ghat [As] deep HP = 10 µg/LBairiya Kotwan Kotwan [As] deep HP = 10 µg/LBelhari Ekauna Ekauna UNICEF project3.3.2 Schedule of questions for the individual and group interviewsThe use of semi-structured interviews has been chosen to collect qualitative data. Thismethod provided a prepared frame of questions whose order or the wording could beadapted to the informant (Robson, 2002). This limited the risk of forgetting importantquestions and made the conduct of the interview easier for the interviewer.Open-ended questions permitted many answers and knowing what the respondentthought. That is why they have been preferred to closed questions in the questionnaire.However, these latter were not totally excluded to get fixed responses.The check list of questions can be consulted in appendix A.3.3.3 Sources of information- Individuals with specific characteristicsIn the villages, community leaders and any villager especially knowledgeable aboutwater have been consulted when it was possible.Moreover, two engineers of UP Jal Nigam, the Chief Medical Officer of the Balliadistrict and a biologist of the ITRC have been met in Lucknow and Ballia to set thebackground of the project.Cranfield University 18Héloïse Hubert, 2008

- Groups with specific characteristicsArsenic affected people were the target population because they would be the firstgroup concerned by arsenic mitigation measures. The data provided by UP Jal Nigamallowed knowing the name of the most contaminated households in each village. Somehousehold have also been chosen randomly because they were situated close to acontaminated HP.In addition, women were selected preferentially because they are mostly responsible forthe water collection, the children and the household. Castes groups had also to beconsidered because water access, awareness and capacity to pay could differ betweenthe members of the highest and the lowest castes. To respect this last criterion, differentparts of the villages were visited but the lack of time in each village did not allowcovering all the area. So, it is not assured that the sample was representative.In total 99 respondents have been involved, as individuals or as groups, in the study (cf.table 3.4).Table 3.4 Summary of individual interviews and group discussion held in studied sitesBlock Gram Panchayat VillageIndividualinterviewsGroup discussionsBelhari Bajaraha Chain Chhapra a) 1 man a) 4 men, 2 women(2 affected)b) 3 men, 1 affectedwomanBelhari Haldi Haldi a) 1 affected man a) 1 male teacher, 3 menb) 2 menc) 6 mend) 2 men, 1 womane) 2 menBelhari Gangapur Rikni Chhapra a) 1 lecturer in a) 3 men (1 affected)touch with b) the leader of theJadavpur community and 1University affected manb) 3 men (1 affected)*c) 2 men*MurliChhapraDalan Chhapra Dalan Chhapra a) 1man a) 3 men and 1 affectedwomanb) 2 men (1 affected) andCranfield University 19Héloïse Hubert, 2008

1 male teacherc) 3 men and 4 womenReoti Gai Ghat Gai Ghat a) 7 men (1 politicalleader)b) 2 men, 1 womanc) 2 women, 1 mand) 3 women, 2 men (3affected)e) 4 womenf) 5 menBairiya Kotwan Kotwan a) 2 men affectedBelhari Ekauna Ekauna a) the leader of a) 1 female teacher andthe communityb) 1 femaleteacher1 manb) 2 womenc) 3 menUP Jala) M. Srivastava,NigamChief engineer,Lucknow officeb) M. Shuklah,Engineerexecutive, BalliaofficeIndiana) Dr Gopal,ToxilogicalResearchCentreScientist & HeadaquatictoxicologySecretaryDistricta) Dr. Tiwari,medicalChief medicalcentreofficer of Balliadistrict* Interview mainly held by Blanco (2008) because of a lack of translator3.3.4 Tools for data collection- Individual interviewsIn each village, individual semi-structured interviews of the key informants have beenorganised to obtain specific information quickly.Cranfield University 20Héloïse Hubert, 2008

- Focus group interviewThe time available in each village was too short to organise enough accurate individualinterviews with the villagers. So focus-group interviews with maximum eightparticipants have been conducted to generate a sufficient amount of data quickly. Giventhe high rate of illiteracy, it was safer to use oral methods. Moreover to assess theawareness and perception of the community, discussion was judged more appropriatethan written questionnaires to help the exchanges of views.- ObservationIn addition to interviews, direct observation has provided information about the state ofthe water sources and the layout of the households.- ReportsData related to arsenic concentration in the affected villages equipped with deep boredIndia Mark-II HP were provided by UP Jal Nigam, Ballia. WaterAid reports aboutarsenic problem in Ballia district allowed establishing the background of the project.The preliminary literature review was also a source of information about existing ART.- Validity and reliability of the dataThe use of four methods to collect data and the combination of quantitative andqualitative approaches improved the validity of the research according to thetriangulation strategy (Robson, 2002).3.4 Ethical issue and survey limitationsThe section considers both the positives and negatives of the chosen methodologywhich could have impacted the data collection.3.4.1 Interview biasAs Neuman (1999) pointed it out, interview bias could affect the results of the research.First, the respondent could misunderstand the question or lie because of the presence ofothers or to please the interviewer. To avoid these problems, it was important beforeeach interview to remind the interviewees of the aim of the research, which was toCranfield University 21Héloïse Hubert, 2008

understand, not to judge. The use of open-ended questions and neutral behaviour of theinterviewer tended to limit the influence on the answers.Following the local custom, the interviews were generally led in front of the houses,which could encourage the coming of spectators around the questioned group. Thissituation did not disturb the interviews because the spectators remained silent and itprevented the interviewer from stay alone with men what should be avoided inaccordance with the cultural rules. Nevertheless, this audience could have botheredsome interviewees when sensitive points such as expenses were tackled.Secondly, errors can come from the interviewer if the questions are confused,ambiguous or not adapted to the respondent. That is why, a good preparation of thefieldwork with WaterAid staff was first required to design the semi-structuredinterviews.Translation from English to Hindi increased the risk of bias during the interviews,above all because Hindi was not the mother tongue of most villagers. Translation tendedto alter or simplify the point of view of the respondents, especially at the end of the day,when the translator gets tired. The use of a qualified translator was needed to limit thisproblem and before starting the interviews, it was important to brief the translator aboutthe interviewer’s expectations: translation instead of interpretation.Nevertheless, the major issue remained the difficulty to find a translator in the area.Three successive translators have participated to the interviews and finally the absenceof translator ended the fieldwork earlier than was planned by the researcher.3.4.2 Cultural practicesAccording to the local culture, women do not have permission to speak with foreignersand to go out of the home. So in traditional villages it was sometimes difficult, evenimpossible, to make the women to take part to the interviews. Nevertheless empoweredwomen such as the teachers could speak easily with the interviewer and group formedexclusively with authorized women was felt a good compromise to assure theirparticipation.Cranfield University 22Héloïse Hubert, 2008

3.4.3 Absence of test of the current arsenic concentration in drinking waterGiven arsenic contamination is a very sensitive issue, notably from a political point ofview, it would have been desirable to carry out independent arsenic testing. Arsenictesting would have been an opportunity to test personal HP which had not been testedyet and to follow the evolution of arsenic concentration at the HP already tested by UPJal Nigam. Yet the lack of time available in the villages and the difficulties to gettechnical facilities in the area did not allow measuring arsenic concentration in thehouseholds surveyed. So, the objective 3 could not be fully achieved, given it was notpossible to assess the efficacy of the mitigation technologies from a technical point ofview.The data provided by UP Jal Nigam have constituted the only detailed source ofinformation about arsenic contamination in the district and there were no data availablefor the villages where deep HP had not been implemented. In this context, it wasassumed that the most affected villages were indeed the villages cited by UP Jal Nigamand that the figures provided were truthful.3.4.4 Representative samplingThe limited time available in the villages and the lack of translator did not allowinterviewing enough people to be statistically representative of the villages. Indeed lessthan 1% of the population was interviewed. Nevertheless the visits allowed providing a“snapshot” of the main issues in the villages and the point of saturation was reachedduring the visits.The methodology adopted to gather the information was designed to meet the objectives1, 2 and 4. The lack of time and logistic were the main brake to its implementation onthe field. Nevertheless, the objectives were fulfilled. The obtained results are presentedand discussed in the next chapter.Cranfield University 23Héloïse Hubert, 2008

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe section presents and discusses the results of the survey conducted in the field, whatallows meeting the objectives 1, 2 and 4 of the research. Water supply and communityperception and attitude towards arsenicosis are considered.4.1 Status of the water supply in the villages surveyedTo assess the water supply status in the villages, the organisation of the villages, watersources, water uses, water quality and monitoring arrangements as well as existingtreatment technologies have been reviewed.4.1.1 Presentation of the villages surveyedThe seven villages visited were situated in the eastern part of Ballia district, close to theGanges and Ghaghra rivers, between one and two hours away from Ballia by 4x4.The number of inhabitants varied between 2,000 and 6,000. Villages were divided intoseveral compounds called Hamlets based on the castes.People spoke Bhojpuri, a local dialect but most of them spoke Hindi too. Only twopersons met spoke English.Agriculture represented the main activity for among 70% of the population whichmakes people very dependent of their crops to get food and income. Governmentemployed 20% of the people and private sector 10%.The area surveyed was very poor: there was no electricity and no tarred road in thevillages. Houses were made of boughs or brick depending on the incomes and they werevery poorly furnished. The members of the lower castes were the poorest and the lesseducated people. They were generally less aware of arsenic contamination and have lessaccess to arsenic mitigation measures. Consequently they could be the most arsenicaffected population but there is not specific data to confirm this assumption.There was no existing Community Based Organization (CBO) in the studied villages. InDalan Chhapra, a committee of 15 members had been created many years ago butbecause of the absence of project, it has been dissolved. In the other villages, there waslittle cohesion in the community, according to the villagers.Cranfield University 24Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Village of Rikni Chhapra, Belhari Block4.1.2 Sources of drinking water- Hand pumpsHand pumps have constituted the main water supply facility in the studied area since theabandoning of surface water and open dug well in the last twenty years. 85% ofhouseholds surveyed possessed personal shallow HP and government HP (shallow ordeep) were used by 53% of them. Personal HP were preferred to government onesbecause they are situated in the households and so represent the closest source of water.Insufficient coverage with government HP could urge people to use personal HP butthere was no record of the number of HP in the studied villages to assess water access.However, nobody claimed for water supply during the survey and according to UP JalNigam (2008), 93% of the habitations are covered in Ballia district. Hence wateravailability is not an issue in the area.Around the new India Mark-II HP the soil were covered with concrete in goodcondition and a drain prevented stagnation of water. Gates protected the access to theseHP in Chain Chhapra but personal HP were implemented without any protection.All people felt ownership for their HP, given they paid to get them and were responsiblefor the maintenance. Private mechanics from outside were called in case of breakage ofthe personal HP. Costs were shared between the users and varied from $11 to $36 55 All costs are converted from Indian rupee to U.S dollar at an exchange rate of 0.02277.Cranfield University 25Héloïse Hubert, 2008

depending on the repairs. UP Jal Nigam was in charge of the government HP butalthough in this case, reparations were free, they were always delayed, which sometimespushed the users to do it by themselves.A deep government India Mark-II HP in Dalan Chhapra- Open wellsIn each village, one or two open wells were used for agriculture in the fields. InKotwan, the only open well observed, formerly used for dinking water supply, was in astate of neglect. The use of open wells for drinking water was only observed in thevillage of Rikni Chhapra where 11 open wells have been restored recently.- RiverIn Chain Chhapra, 2% of the population collected their water from the Ganges whosewater is sacred so considered safe according to Hinduism.4.1.3 Water usesGiven the proximity of the HP, people were used to collecting water just beforeconsumption. Consequently water was rarely stored, what should be taken into accountin the future with the implementation of water piped systems which would not supplywater 24h/7d.Water was used for all the domestic needs (drinking, cooking, bathing, and washing)and for the animals. Since 2004, deep India Mark-II HP have been installed by theCranfield University 26Héloïse Hubert, 2008

government, as new arsenic-safe source of water for the most affected households. Yet,the lack of deep HP and the lack of awareness of the population towards arsenic did notcontribute to change the former practices. Thus contaminated sources were still used forall the needs. Nevertheless in Haldi and Chain Chhapra, 23% of people interviewedused exclusively water from deep government HP for drinking and cooking becausewater was judged arsenic-free.For agriculture, farmers used water from open wells situated in the fields.4.1.4 Water quality and monitoring arrangement- Arsenic contaminationSince 2004, government HP have been checked once, by UP Jal Nigam or UNICEF, inall the villages, and arsenic contaminated HP have been marked red. Yet most personalHP have not been checked.The village of Rikni Chhapra was an exception because arsenic contamination has beenfirst revealed by the study of the University of Jadavpur, Calcutta in 2003. AfterwardsUP Jal Nigam confirmed the results and marked the contaminated HP.Through the absence of listing of the arsenic contaminated HP, it was not possible toevaluate their percentage in the villages. The village of Kotwan was the only one wherevery few household (one visited) were concerned by arsenic contamination.The technology used to test arsenic in the water was unknown in the villages. Accordingto UP Jal Nigam (2008), FTK using colour scale, a UV spectrophotometer situated inBallia or atomic absorption spectrophotometer at ITRC, Lucknow, have been usedduring the arsenic testing project. FTK do not provide very accurate results but it seemsthe most reasonable solution regarding the costs, the number of tests required and thelack of time and spectrophotometers available in the district.No water quality monitoring programme was in progress in the visited villages. Thislack of monitoring could be explained by the huge number of villages which have beentested since 2004 in the district (1830) compared to little manpower and technologiesavailable in UP Jal Nigam. To address this problem, the Indian government is planningthe decentralization of water quality monitoring from the district to the GramCranfield University 27Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Panchayats. Therefore, within the context of the National Drinking Water Monitoring &Surveillance Programme launched in 2006, UP Jal Nigam is providing FTK to GramPanchayats (UP Jal Nigam, 2008). From this perspective, teaching the community intesting their own sources for arsenic could also be a way to empower the communitiesand make them more aware of the problem. Moreover, the set up of the programme willallow following the evolution of arsenic contamination in time and so help theestablishment of efficient mitigation measures in the affected area.In addition to arsenic, this programme should also provide data about other chemicalparameters and bacteriological contamination which are missing until now.Arsenic contamination of food was not studied in the villages surveyed. Yet, given thehigh consumption of rice in the area, the total daily intake of arsenic may be increasedconsiderably through food (Heikens, 2006). Further data would be necessary to assessthis aspect of arsenic contamination.- Other pollutantsShallow HP were generally considered unsafe by the villagers because “the waterbecomes yellow” after storage. This coloration might be the consequence of theoxidation of iron in the water. A light iron taste of the water supported this assumptionbut testing was missing to confirm it. The origin of iron was unknown but theobservation of the yellow colouring after pumping few minutes suggests a natural ironoccurring in groundwater rather than corrosion of the pipes of the HP.In addition to the natural chemical pollution, the many cases of diarrhoea suggestedmicrobial contamination too.4.1.5 Existing water treatment and mitigation measuresAt the same time than the marking of contaminated HP, people had been advised not touse the water for drinking and cooking. Yet through lack of nearby alternative source ofwater and a lack of knowledge about arsenic toxicity, most people did not follow theserecommendation and continued drinking arsenic contaminated water without anytreatment.Cranfield University 28Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Nevertheless some mitigation measures have been observed in the villages. They can bedivided into two types:- Alternative arsenic-free source of water• 101 Deep India Mark-II HP have been installed by UP Jal Nigam in the mostaffected households of the seven studied villages. They were the first mitigationmeasure known and wished by the villagers in the area. Because of their depth(between 200 and 250 feet), they were considered safe. However, in three villages, itwas affirmed that deep HP are less deep that what they should be because of corruption.If it is true, water issued from these HP could more likely be contaminated, but it wasnot possible to verify this assumption in the field.Moreover, although they currently constitute the main alternative arsenic-free source ofwater, deep HP could get contaminated in the next years because of groundwaterextraction and the number of deep HP was not sufficient to supply the whole affectedhouseholds. Therefore, it is important to consider deep HP as a short-medium termsolution before the implementation of sustainable mitigation measures.• As said previously, 11 open wells have been restored in Rikni Chhapra to providewater for drinking and cooking. With a good monitoring of the bacteriologicalcontamination, open well could constitute a good alternative source of water.Nevertheless, the effort required for collecting the water and the distance from thehousehold make their use less attractive than the HP for the villagers.• Two piped water supply scheme were in progress in Chain Chhapra and RikniChhapra. Deep tube wells should supply a water tank at the community level. In bothvillages, the projects have started but the building being not regular, villagers did notknow when they will be over.Piped water supply scheme constitute a long term solution but the use of very deep tubewells to supply water could run the risk of future arsenic contamination of the deeplayer. The use of surface water would seem more appropriate given the proximity of therivers Ganges and Ghaghra with the villages.• Few small RWH systems have been punctually observed in the studied area tofeed the cattle. Yet, although 15 RWH systems have already been implemented by UPJal Nigam in the district (UP Jal Nigam, 2008), the absence of rainfall during the threeCranfield University 29Héloïse Hubert, 2008

quarters of the year and the local use of thatched roofs would limit the spread of thissolution as a sustainable drinking water supply.- Arsenic removal technologies• Bucket filters were used by around 30% of the families in Ekauna, following aproject supported by UNICEF since three years ago. Only the most affected people hadbeen provided by UNICEF, the rest of the community was advised to buy the filters byitself. However because of the high capital cost (around $114/filter), only rich peoplewere equipped, what created tension in the community. It was not possible to enter intothe house to see the filters, but according to the description given by the users, themedium was made of sand and iron. Cleaning was required every day, what was judgedinconvenient and the two candles had to be changed every 5-6 months (Rs1.40 each).Nevertheless, filters were appreciated because their users had noticed an improvementof their health since they used it.In Rikni Chhapra, 300 filters, costing $1.10 each, had been distributed by the NGOSave the Environment the day before the visit. People had not been taught about theO&M required yet but the renewal of the media should be assured by the NGO after oneyear. If this pilot project is revealed successful, further filters should be provided. Theproject was too recent to judge its efficiency.It would be interesting to meet people from UNICEF and Save the Environmentresponsible for these projects to get their feedback, what was not achievable during thetime allocated to this survey.In the others villages some people had heard about filters but the capital cost preventmost of them of purchasing one.Filters were well accepted by all the people because they are considered easy to use andprovide safe water quickly. Nevertheless, the good operating of the filters such as thereplacement of the medium, which constitutes a critical factor to ensure their efficiency,was not checked at the household level. In addition, the users were mostly dependent onthe help of outside organizations. Hence the sustainability of the system could bechallenged in the long term.• In Chain Chhapra, few families treated their water by coagulation/flocculationprocess using aluminium alum, Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 18H 2 O. They had been taught by a doctor inCranfield University 30Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Calcutta. Nevertheless, the process showed its limits in the fields. Indeed, only verymotivated people accepted to use this treatment which requires time and discipline to beoperated properly.• Some people knew that boiling water and filtering water through clothes couldimprove its quality. Yet these treatments were rarely applied because of the lack offacilities (wood, gas) and the lack of motivation to do it daily.4.2 Knowledge, awareness and perception of arsenicosisThe section considers the social aspect of arsenic problem with the communityawareness and perception of arsenicosis and their willingness to change their behaviour.4.2.1 Awareness and knowledge about arsenicosisIn Gai Ghat, interviewed people had never heard about arsenic and arsenicosis. Most ofthem even did not know about the government’s policies relating to arsenic in thevillage. In the other villages, people knew that arsenic is present in groundwater andcauses skin problems. They had been taught by UP Jal Nigam and UNICEF at the sametime than the marking of the contaminated HP or by their doctor. But 90% of them hadno idea how to remove arsenic.The absence of awareness in Gai Ghat, geographically distant from the others villages,could be due to a failure in the planning of the awareness campaign led by UP JalNigam. Until now, actions of government and international organizations seemed morefocused on the villages lining the Ganges (cf. figure 2.3).Occasionally, some confusion was observed towards arsenic. It was considered as thecause of all the diseases notably diarrhoea and cold. The colouration of water in yellowwas allocated to arsenic. Some people also believed that boiling the water could removeit.The number of people affected by arsenic in each block of the district was given by UPJal Nigam (cf. table 3.2) but the number of people affected in each village wasunknown. Three types of persons were met in the villages:• People diagnosed affected by arsenic by a qualified medical reference;Cranfield University 31Héloïse Hubert, 2008

• People presenting skin problems, similar to arsenicosis, but without medicaldiagnostic; and• People not affected by arsenicosis.4.2.2 Willingness to use mitigation measures- Willingness to participate to a projectAll the people met were aware that purified water is necessary to be healthy and to beable to work. That is why they all expressed their willingness to do something toimprove the drinking water quality if they are taught about it.Only few people were not interested in treating their water because they considered itwas already safe. A kind of fatalism, maybe linked to Hinduism faith in destiny, waspunctually observed in the village and could put a brake on a future project. Accordingto the members of DOVSWS working in the area, education is the only way toovercome this issue. The involvement of Hindu priests and the use of Indian epics asexamples in awareness campaigns may be helpful to motivate reluctant people too.- Willingness to payIn Dalan Chhapra and Gai Ghat, interviewed people from the lower caste were reluctantto pay to get safe water because they were very poor. Indeed, they were not the ownerof their home and used government HP because they could not afford a personal one.In the other villages, people interviewed would agree to pay. The amount cited variedbetween $11 and $137 to get mitigation measure, but because of the absence of concreteproject presented, the accuracy of these figures remains uncertain. Moreover, thisquestion was quite sensitive, notably when tackled in group discussions, so peoplemight be unlikely to say what they could really pay.Nevertheless, in all the cases, people were able to pay for the reparation of the existingHP sharing the costs. Health represented the main source of expenses. Depending on therevenue, between $45 and $273 per year were allocated to health budget. So, it shouldbe possible to make the people agree to pay for safe water if they are taught about thereturns they could get for their health. Paying small amounts distributing during the yearseems the best solution for the poorest communities.Cranfield University 32Héloïse Hubert, 2008

In the villages surveyed, water supply was characterised by the use of HP whateverwater use and water quality. Despite the programme launched by the state governmentand some punctual initiatives, most of the population still ignore arsenic contaminationdaily because of a lack of awareness and alternative measures. Nevertheless, peoplewould agree to take part in a project and pay for safe water.This chapter achieved the objectives 1 and 4. The objective 2 was achieved though alack of feedback from the agencies which implemented the projects in the villages. Theobjective 3 could not be achieved from a technical point of view because of a lack ofdata. Nevertheless, it will be met in the next two chapters as well as the aim of the studywith the recommendations.Cranfield University 33Héloïse Hubert, 2008

5. CONCLUSIONIn all the villages surveyed, water supply was characterised by the easy access to handpumps (personal or government) to respond to all the water needs. Open wells andsurface water from rivers were rarely used. Arsenic contamination of the governmentHP had been checked by UP Jal Nigam and contaminated HP had been marked but ironand microbial pollution were suspected too. Despite the water was often judged unsafe,people kept using water from the closest source without any treatment and storagebefore consumption. In addition to the deep India Mark-II HP implemented by thegovernment as arsenic mitigation measures, filters have been provided by outsideorganizations in two villages. Some personal initiatives have been observed in fewhouseholds to treat water boiling it, using coagulation/flocculation process or filters.Presence of arsenic in water was known by most of the population but awareness aboutits toxicity remained generally too poor to imply a change in the water practices.Knowledge about arsenicosis was also poor and medical advices were missing.All the people would like to do something to improve the quality of water if they aretaught about it and most of them would agree to pay for safe water. Depending on theincomes and the motivation of the people, between $11 and $137 per year could beallocated to a water treatment.To conclude, the implementation of any project should take into account severalconstraints:- the lack of awareness of the population which influence motivation andinvolvement of the community;- the other needs of the population such as electricity, education, health and land.Although water was considered fundamental for life, safe water was not always whatpeople claim for in priority.- the extent of the problem: given the large area affected and the high number ofpeople at risk in the district, a lot of time, means (human, logistic, financial) andorganization would be required to address the problem. That is why the involvement ofCranfield University 34Héloïse Hubert, 2008

the community is essential as well as a good cooperation between the differentstakeholders in the field: government, UNICEF, NGOs and researchers.In this context, the first priority remains awareness of the community to assure itsinvolvement and agreement in any future project. Moreover, given the high number ofpeople currently at risk in the area, further medium-term arsenic mitigation measuresare necessary to bridge the gap until the government develops piped water systems aslong-term solutions. These recommendations are developed in the next chapter.Cranfield University 35Héloïse Hubert, 2008

6. RECOMMENDATIONSAwareness of the affected population with concrete measures to decrease arsenicconsumption is required.6.1 Awareness campaignWhatever the mitigation measure chosen, awareness of the population about arseniccontamination is the first priority in the villages to guarantee the success of any project.Because of the high number of inhabitants in the villages, it seems preferable to makeawareness meetings at the habitation level. It could help the involvement of women andmembers of the lower castes, who are usually excluded of the community meetings.Children are also a target population to limit future arsenic patients. They can be taughtat school.Given the high rate of illiteracy, oral methods would be more efficient. Posters withpictures could be put up near the HP and in the main places of the villages (temples,school) to leave a sustainable mark of the awareness campaign. It has also beenobserved that local newspapers were a source of information for many literate villagers.So this media could be used to create awareness too.Systematic awareness campaign would require time if only outside interveners work inthe villages and the involvement of the community is fundamental to assure thesustainability of the project. Hence, in each village, some people could be morespecially trained to teach the other members of the community. It would imply capacitybuilding of the communities with notably the creation of water committees.In addition to awareness, qualified medical doctors would be helpful to diagnose arsenicpatients in area where arsenicosis detection is missing.6.2 Arsenic mitigation measures6.2.1 Level of the mitigation measuresThe local habit of collecting water at the household level encourages the promotion ofhousehold level treatment. Although operating one communal arsenic removal plantCranfield University 36Héloïse Hubert, 2008

would be easier than several individuals ones, the lack of cohesion in the villagesprevent from using mitigation measures at the community level at the moment.Nevertheless, this solution could be considered in the future, when water will be supplyat the community level and after the creation of water committees.6.2.2 Choice of the mitigation measureThe advantages and drawbacks of the different mitigation measures presented in theliterature review have been compared. They are recapitulated in the appendix B.The following factors have been considered to choose the most suitable solution:- Easy O&MO&M required should be as simple as possible given people are not used to treatingtheir water. Simple maintenance has also the advantage of requiring less training of theusers. Hence, technologies which need too much discipline to be operated such ascoagulation/flocculation processes and some sorptive filters should be avoided.- Use of locally available resourcesThe use of local resources was preferred to limit the dependence to outside materials.Thus, chemicals were not recommended because they involve regular supply, safestorage and create toxic wastes.- Quick treatmentPeople are used to drink their water directly after collection because it is easily availableand fresh. Consequently ART should treat water quickly, which eliminates passivesedimentation and SORAS method.- Low costsIn the studied area, people were generally very poor and the willingness to pay varieddepending on the incomes, the caste and the awareness of people about water quality.Consequently expensive ART using membrane technologies and ion resin exchangewere considered inadequate. Nevertheless, these mitigations measures could becomeinteresting at the community level because of the sharing of the costs.Cranfield University 37Héloïse Hubert, 2008

6.2.3 Household sand filterConsequently to the previous results, sand filter was judged the most suitabletechnology. Indeed, in the studied area groundwater was also characterized by highlevel of dissolved iron which coloured the water yellow after storage. It would beinteresting to use the naturally occurring iron precipitates to remove arsenic by coprecipitationand adsorption. This technology has been successfully implemented inVietnam by Luzi et al. (2004). Much of the following description resumes their work.- Design of the sand filterThe household sand filter is made of two superimposed tanks (cf. figure 6.1).Groundwater is pumped from the HP, filtered trough a sand bed in the upper tank thenstored in the second tank. A perforated basin or pipe can be installed before the filtrationto boost the aeration of the water.HandpumpSand filterWater collectionWater storage tankFigure 6.1 Household sand filter according to Luzi et al. (2004)This technology requires only local materials: bricks and concrete to build the tanks andlocal sand for the filter. These materials should be easily available in the area, bricksbeing commonly used to build houses and sand easily found close to the rivers. The useof plastic buckets is also possible for small volumes of water.Once filtered, water can be stored several days what reduce the operation required. Thevolume of the tanks can be adapted to the needs of the household without influencingthe efficiency of the process. Moreover, the pipe linking the filter and the HP can beremoved if water is needed for other uses than drinking and cooking.Cranfield University 38Héloïse Hubert, 2008

- O&MThe clogging of the sand bed by the precipitated iron hydroxides constitutes the maincause of maintenance. The sand bed needs to be replaced every 1-2 months dependingon the iron content in groundwater and the volume of water treated. Used sand is notdangerous in oxic conditions which prevent arsenic release. Thus, it can be used asconstruction materials or stored in courtyard but to avoid the contamination of plants, itis not recommended to discard it on fields.A coating of iron hydroxides is required to enhance the efficiency of the filter. Henceafter the renewal of the sand bed, until the top sand becomes slightly brown, arsenicconcentration in groundwater could exceed 50 µg/L. Nevertheless this situation wouldhappen only few days every 1-2 months, which is tolerable.To avoid microbial activity and keep oxic conditions, the sand bed needs to be driedbetween two successive filtrations and both tanks should be cleaned at the time of thesand bed replacement. The covering of the tank and the use of clean utensils to collectwater are recommended to prevent bacterial activity too.- EfficiencyThe arsenic removal rate depends essentially of the iron concentration in groundwater.The more iron is present, the larger surface is formed by iron (hydr)oxides and the morearsenic is adsorbed (cf. table 6.1). Hence, iron concentration testing is required beforeimplementing household sand filter to verify their applicability in affected areas.Other chemical, such as phosphates, can also influence the arsenic removal efficiency.Table 6.1 Arsenic removal efficiency related to iron concentration (Luzi et al., 2004)Iron concentrationin groundwaterWater colouring caused byiron-precipitationEstimated arsenic removalin sand filters 80%If initial iron concentration in groundwater is not enough to reduce arsenic contentbelow the standard level, the use of iron fillings or addition of chemical such as ferricsalts could be considered (Ahmed, 2001). This solution would imply the set up of aCranfield University 39Héloïse Hubert, 2008

further tank to mix the chemical with the water before filtration. Moreover, the use ofiron filings increases the risk of clogging the filter which could make the O&M morefrequent (World Bank and WSP, 2005b).Household sand filter has also the great advantage of removing microbiologicalcontamination.- CostsAccording to Sobsey (2007), household sand filter is a technology of low to moderatecost, what corresponds to $10-100 per year, assuming household use 25L/day.According to the results (cf. part 4.2.2), this amount should be affordable by most of thefamilies in the villages.Cranfield University 40Héloïse Hubert, 2008

REFERENCESAhmed F. (2001). An Overview of Arsenic Removal Technologies in Bangladesh andIndia. In: BUET-UNU International Workshop on Technologies for Arsenic Removalfrom Drinking Water, Dhaka, Bangladesh, May 5-7 2001, p. 251-269.http://www.unu.edu/env/Arsenic/Ahmed.pdf. (Accessed May 2008).Ahsan T. (2002). Technologies for arsenic removal from groundwater. In: SmallCommunity Water Supplies: Technology, people and partnership, edited by Smet J. andvan Wijk C., The Netherlands, p. 515-532.http://www.irc.nl/page/1917. (Accessed May 2008).Ali M. A., Badruzzaman A. B. M., Jalil M. A, Hossain M. D., Hussainuzzaman M. M.,Badruzzaman M., Mohammad O. I., Akter N. (2001). Development of Low-costTechnologies for Removal of Arsenic from Groundwater. In: BUET-UNU InternationalWorkshop on Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water, Dhaka,Bangladesh, May 5-7 2001, p. 99-120.http://www.unu.edu/env/arsenic/Proceedings.htm. (Accessed May 2008).Blanco L. (2008). Assessment to recommend appropriate microbial household levelwater treatment in Ballia district in India. MSc Thesis, Cranfield University.Chakraborti D., Mukherjee S. C., Pati S., Sengupta M. K., Rahman M. M., ChowdhuryU. K., Lodh D., Chanda C. R., Chakraborti A. K.,and Basu G. K. (2003). ArsenicGroundwater Contamination in Middle Ganga Plain, Bihar, India: A Future Danger?Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(9), p. 1194-1201.Charlet L. and Polya D. A. (2006). Arsenic in Shallow, Reducing Groundwaters inSouthern Asia: An Environmental Health Disaster. Elements, Vol. 2, p. 91-96.Chine Informations. (2008). Le Brahmapoutre. http://www.chineinformations.com/images/upload/Ganga-Brahmaputra.gif.(Accessed July 2008).DOVSWS and PGCS. (2007). Perspective and Strategy Paper 2007-2012. DOVSWS,New Delhi.Government of India. (2004). Technologies available for removal of excess Arsenic,Fluoride, Salinity, Nitrate, Iron and Biological contamination in drinking water,Reference Manual. New Delhi.Heikens A. (2006). Arsenic contamination of irrigation water, soil and crops inBangladesh: Risk implications for sustainable agriculture and food safety in Asia. FAO,Bangkok.ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ag105e/ag105e00.pdf. (Accessed July 2008).Johnston R., Heijnen H. and Wurzel P. (2001). Safe Water Technology. WHO.http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/arsenicun6.pdf. (Accessed May2008).Cranfield University 41Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Khurana I. and Sen R. (2008). Drinking water quality in rural India: issues andapproaches. WaterAid, New Delhi.http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/drinking_water.pdf. (AccessedJuly 2008).Luzi S., Berg M., Pham T.K.T., Pham H.V. and Shertenleib R. (2004). Household SandFilters for Arsenic Removal – Technical Report. Swiss Federal Institute forEnvironmental Science and Technology (EAWAG), Duebendorf, Switzerland.http://www.arsenic.eawag.ch/pdf/luziberg04_sandfilter_e.pdf. (Accessed July 2008).Maps of India. (2008a). Uttar Pradesh Districts.http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/uttarpradesh/uttar-pradesh-district.htm. (AccessedJuly 2008).Maps of India. (2008b). Ballia District Map.http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/uttarpradesh/districts/ballia.htm. (Accessed July2008).Mukherjee A., Sengupta M. K., M. Hossain A., Ahamed S., Das B., Nayak B., Lodh D.,Rahman M. M., and Chakraborti D. (2006). Arsenic Contamination in Groundwater: AGlobal Perspective with Emphasis on the Asian Scenario. Journal of Health, Populationand Nutrition, 24(2), p. 142-163.http://www.rsc.org/images/arseniccontamination_tcm18-94453.pdf. (Accessed July2008).Neuman W. L. (1999). Social Research Methods, Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches, 4 th ed. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights.Nriagu J. O. (1994). Arsenic in the Environment, Part I: Cycling and Characterization.John Wiley & Sons, New York.O’Day P. A. (2006). Chemistry and Mineralogy of Arsenic. Elements, Vol. 2, p. 77-83.Robson C. (2002). Real World Research, 2 nd ed. Blackwell publishing, Oxford.Singh A. K. (2006). Chemistry of arsenic in groundwater of Ganges–Brahmaputra riverbasin. Current Science, 91(5), p. 599-606.Smith A. H., Lingas E.O. and Rahman M. (2000). Contamination of drinking-water byarsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency. Bulletin of the World HealthOrganization, 78 (9), p. 1093-1103.http://www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/pdf/2000/issue9/bu0751.pdf. (Accessed May2008).Sobsey M. D. (2007). Managing Water in the Home: Accelerated Health Gains fromImproved Water Supply. World Health Organization, Geneva.Cranfield University 42Héloïse Hubert, 2008

United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted bythe General Assembly. Fifty-fifth sessionhttp://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf.(Accessed May 2008).UP Jal Nigam. (2004). Details of deep bored India Mark-II Hand Pump of arsenicaffected area. E.E.C.D/ IInd P.D.U.P. Jal Nigam, Ballia.UP Jal Nigam. (2008). The Community Participation Unit.http://www.upjn.org/CPU.htm. (Accessed July 2008).WaterAid. (2007). Arsenic Mitigation in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow (unpublishedreport).World Bank and WSP. (2005a). Towards a More Effective Operational Response,Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater in South and East Asian Countries. Vol. I,Policy Report, n°31303. (Accessed May 2008).World Bank and WSP. (2005b). Towards a More Effective Operational Response,Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater in South and East Asian Countries. Vol. II,Technical Report, n°31303. (Accessed May 2008).WHO. (2004). Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health.http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/facts2004/en/index.html.(Accessed May 2008).WHO. (2001). Arsenic in drinking water.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs210/en/print.html. (Accessed May 2008).Cranfield University 43Héloïse Hubert, 2008

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A: INTERVIEWS GUIDELINES .....................................................................................45APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF MAIN ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES .................48Cranfield University 44Héloïse Hubert, 2008

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWS GUIDELINESINTERVIEW FOR USERSA. Brief introduction in which the interviewer presents a short background and explainsto the interviewees the aim of their contribution.B. Questions asked in a semi-structured manner.Interview detailsDate, Location, Name, Gender, Age, Caste, Education, Activities, Translator, Present.Introduction1. I am not from here, please could you tell me what life is like in the village?2. Has this got better or worse over the years?Water availability and access3. Where did you get water from?4. How far is it to the tap?5. Is it reliable? Where do you go if the handpump is broken?6. Who takes initiative to repair the handpump?7. Who pays for that? How much do you pay for that?8. How much water would you use per day? (above all for drinking and cooking)9. How many people would that be for?10. What do use your water for?Water quality/Health11. Can you tell me about the quality of the water?12. Has the water quality of the handpump been tested? Do you remember when?Who did it?13. Is the water contaminated with arsenic?Cranfield University 45Héloïse Hubert, 2008

14. Did the children get sick in the last days? What sort of things? Is it the same forthe adults?15. What would you do when you got sick?16. How much do you spend for your health per year?17. What is the origin of diseases (unhygienic practices, food, water, etc.)? Why doyou think that? Do you think there is a link between water and diseases?18. Do you know about the impact of arsenic on health? Can you tell me some effectof arsenic?19. Have you been taught about it? Who has taught you about it?20. Do you know anybody in your family/in the village who is affected by arsenic?21. Do you do something special to improve the quality of the water?22. If so, what technique (or alternative sources) do you use? Why?23. Are you happy of using it? Why? Is it difficult to use it?24. Have you been taught about it?25. Who has taught you? How have you been taught?26. Do you apply theses advices? Is there something impossible to apply?27. What would you do to improve it?28. How long have you used it? Have you noted any health improvement?29. Who pays for it? How much do you pay for it?30. Has any maintenance been required over the past months? Why was themaintenance required?31. Who did the maintenance?32. What was the cost of the work? Who pays for it?33. If not, why you do not do something special to improve the quality of the water?Would you like to do something? What?34. Do you know any arsenic removal technologies? If so, which ones?35. What do you think about people who use these technologies?36. If you use these technologies, what would be different?37. What would you need to get one?38. Would you be ready to pay for your water? How much could you give to getsafe water?39. Do you store your water?Cranfield University 46Héloïse Hubert, 2008

40. How many time per day are you ready to spend to make your water safe?Role of Institutions41. What needs apart from water do you feel that the community has?42. Is there anything that the community could do to improve the water supply?43. Are problems about water discussed by the community?44. Do you feel that the government/NGOs listen to you?Conclusion45. Would you say that you are one of the richest here, or the poorest, or in themiddle?46. Thank you very much. I don't have any more questions, but if you want to sayanything, please do.C. Thank interviewees.INTERVIEW FOR UP JAL NIGAM ENGINEER1. I am not from here, can you tell me about your work in Ballia district?2. What are the main issues related to water in the district?3. How many blocks have been tested for arsenic?4. Which technology has been used for arsenic testing?5. How many blocks are affected?6. Which blocks are the most affected?7. How many Gram Panchayats are affected?8. What do you plan to address this issue?- Mitigation measures, alternatives sources?- Awareness campaigns, teaching of the population?9. Do you plan to work in partnerships with other organizations (e.g. UNICEF)?10. When do you plan to start the project?Cranfield University 47Héloïse Hubert, 2008

APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF MAIN ARSENIC REMOVALTECHNOLOGIESThis table resumes the analysis made by the World Bank (2005b) and the Governmentof India (2004).The parameters which were judged decisive for the final choice are marked bold.Mitigation Measure Advantages DisadvantagesOxidation- time required- fail to reduced arsenic < 50µg/LPassive sedimentation - simple- from 0 to 50% reduction in- no chemical requirementarsenic content- locally available resources- lack of sun during the monsoon- low capital and O&M costsSORAS- hot water- only 30% reduction in arseniccontentPrecipitation-Coagulation-Adsorption Processes- low capital costs- use of chemicals- relatively low cost simpleAluminium alum, ferric- daily operationchemicalssalts- operation required training- require locally availablee.g. BTU, Stevens Instituteand disciplinematerialsTechnology- toxic sludge- good performance in arsenic- medium removal of As (III)removal if operated properly- simple- no chemical requirement- require locally availableAs-Fe removal (air- efficiency depending on ironmaterialsoxidation, sand filtration)concentration in groundwater- low capital and O&M costs- arsenic removal rate from 40%to 80%- require monitoring of breakthrough on filter useSorptive filtration media - no daily O&M- require periodical regenerationof medium- toxic sludge due to regenerationCranfield University 48Héloïse Hubert, 2008

Activated aluminaGranular ferric hydroxideIron coated sandIon exchange resinMembrane techniques- very good efficiency for Asremoval- locally available- high arsenic removal capacity- no regeneration required- low cost- good efficiency for As removal- high removal efficiency- removal of other contaminants- require re-adjustment of pH- require iron removal as pretreatment- toxic sludge- iron precipitates can clog the bed- high cost medium- toxic sludge- high capital and operationalcosts- electricity required- toxic wastewater- high risk of membrane fouling inpresence of ironCranfield University 49Héloïse Hubert, 2008