Evolution of community-based arsenic removal systems in remote villages in West Bengal, India: Assessment of decade-long operation

Sarkar, Sudipta; Greenleaf, J. E.; Gupta, Anirban Das; Ghosh, Debabrata; Blaney, Lee; Bandyopadhyay, P.P.; Biswas, R. K.; Dutta, Amal K.; SenGupta, Arup K.

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.072

Cited by 73 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Involving the community was suggested to be one of the most important methods to improve sustainability by making users more responsible for the operation and maintenance of programs once donors or private financers are no longer involved [28]. By encouraging community involvement, it may be easier to take advantage of local resources, build local capacity for WASH, ensure user satisfaction [38], and involve underrepresented groups such as women [49]. For this reason, decentralized decision making for WASH is supported by many NGOs who support ownership and management of projects to the lowest possible level [46].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools

McGinnis

McKeon

Desai

et al. 2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the success of recent efforts to increase access to improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) globally, approximately one-third of schools around the world still lack adequate WASH services. A lack of WASH in schools can lead to the spread of preventable disease and increase school absences, especially among women. Inadequate financing and budgeting has been named as a key barrier for integrating successful and sustainable WASH programs into school settings. For this reason, the purpose of this review is to describe the current knowledge around the costs of WASH components as well as financing models that could be applied to WASH in schools. Results show a lack of information around WASH costing, particularly around software elements as well as a lack of data overall for WASH in school settings as compared to community WASH. This review also identifies several key considerations when designing WASH budgets or selecting financing mechanisms. Findings may be used to advise future WASH in school programs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools

McGinnis

McKeon

Desai

et al. 2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, key findings from these sources are included in the discussion below. Water treatment-Arsenic Removal for community water X X India [49] Healthcare, Insurance X X X Multiple [75] Higher Education X X X Multiple [76] 3.2.1. Government Financing Government financing methods were included in 22 (81%) sources that described successful or theoretical financing models.…”

Section: Financingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools

McGinnis

McKeon

Desai

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Despite the success of recent efforts to increase access to improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) globally, approximately one-third of schools around the world still lack adequate WASH services. A lack of WASH in schools can lead to the spread of preventable disease and increase school absences, especially among women. Inadequate financing and budgeting has been named as a key barrier for integrating successful and sustainable WASH programs into school settings. For this reason, the purpose of this review is to describe the current knowledge around the costs of WASH components as well as financing models that could be applied to WASH in schools.Results show a lack of information around WASH costing, particularly around software elements as well as there is a lack of data overall for WASH in school settings as compared to community WASH. This review also identifies several key considerations when designing WASH budgets or selecting financing mechanisms. Findings may be used to advise future WASH in school programs.

show abstract

“…Community-scale arsenic removal units were developed and installed in West Bengal (India) to treat arsenic-containing groundwater [21]. Figure 3 shows the unit structure and the associated reactions.…”

Section: Treatment Processes For Remediation Of As Contaminated Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this regard, different approaches could be applied such as treatment of surface water (typically low in As), rainwater harvesting, treatment of pond waters, use of deeper (>150 m deep) wells to extract low-As groundwater, and above all, exploring low-technology, low-cost, locally fitted systems for arsenic removal from groundwater, but all of these approaches are associated with some practical problems in terms of applicability, economy, infrastructure requirements, generic dissemination and future sustainability, although the last one has received considerable attention over the last two decades due to the possibility of wide-scale application in the field. For example, treatment of surface water involves setting-up industrial-scale water purification and distribution plants which are expensive, time-consuming and investment-intensive, particularly for rural Bangladesh [13,21]. Since water extracted from deeper aquifers typically contains much lower As concentrations [22], exploitation of such aquifers in the Bengal Basin could serve as a source of As-safe water for domestic use in the short-term or on a limited basis [23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arsenic Contaminated Groundwater and Its Treatment Options in Bangladesh

Jiang

Ashekuzzaman

Jiang

et al. 2012

IJERPH

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arsenic (As) causes health concerns due to its significant toxicity and worldwide presence in drinking water and groundwater. The major sources of As pollution may be natural process such as dissolution of As-containing minerals and anthropogenic activities such as percolation of water from mines, etc. The maximum contaminant level for total As in potable water has been established as 10 µg/L. Among the countries facing As contamination problems, Bangladesh is the most affected. Up to 77 million people in Bangladesh have been exposed to toxic levels of arsenic from drinking water. Therefore, it has become an urgent need to provide As-free drinking water in rural households throughout Bangladesh. This paper provides a comprehensive overview on the recent data on arsenic contamination status, its sources and reasons of mobilization and the exposure pathways in Bangladesh. Very little literature has focused on the removal of As from groundwaters in developing countries and thus this paper aims to review the As removal technologies and be a useful resource for researchers or policy makers to help identify and investigate useful treatment options. While a number of technological developments in arsenic removal have taken place, we must consider variations in sources and quality characteristics of As polluted water and differences in the socio-economic and literacy conditions of people, and then aim at improving effectiveness in arsenic removal, reducing the cost of the system, making the technology user friendly, overcoming maintenance problems and resolving sludge management issues.

show abstract

Evolution of community-based arsenic removal systems in remote villages in West Bengal, India: Assessment of decade-long operation

Cited by 73 publications

References 26 publications

A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools

A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools

A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools

Arsenic Contaminated Groundwater and Its Treatment Options in Bangladesh

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About