ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF SCHOOL POU DRINKING WATER TREATMENT OPTIONS IN DANG & KAPILVASTU

Sharing workshop @ ENPHO16 September, 2011

Background

To promote and install POU options at schools, ENPHO with support from UNICEF-USAID/AED HIP project and DWSS/WSSDOs have implemented projects in different phases: Phase I: Selection of school and installation of POU

options; Phase II: Intensive research on technical performance

and social acceptance Phase III: Scale up promotion and installation of POU

options and perform preliminary monitoring in 200 schools at four districts viz. Dang, Kapilvastu, Parsa and Panchthar

Installation of POU options

At the end of third phase (December 2008), respective WSSDOs with technical support from ENPHO installed following POU options in schools at four project districts:

Options Dang K-vastu Parsa Panchthar Total Schools

Large CSF 129 63 56 84 332 141

Clay CSF 303 142 213 - 658 99

Plastic CSF - - - 113 113 30

SODIS bottles 3000 1880 1500 1645 8025 133

Large BSF - 10 - - 10 10

Large Arsenic BSF - 4 - - 4 4

Different POU options

Clay CS Filter

Large Biosand Filter

Plastic CS Filter

Large CS Filter

SODIS

The Project:

One of the major components within Su-SWASTHA project supported by USAID and EAWAG;

Received award of USD 2,000 from The WHO to perform this study

Study Area: Dang and Kapilvastu Study period: April – September, 2011

Objectives

Overall Objective: To evaluate technical performance and acceptance of School Point

of Use (POU) installed at schools of Dang and Kapilvastu districts.

Specific Objectives: To identify critical factors that affect continuous use of School

POU options; To assess and recommend strategies that will help sustainable

use of installed POU technologies at school; To document key challenges, problems, lessons learnt and

provide major recommendations for further scaling up of implementation of School POU promotion programme at other part of the country.

Methodology

1• Desk study• Planning

2• School visit, questionnaire survey, FGD• Water Sampling and Analysis

3• Report preparation• Dissemination of findings

Water Quality Analysis

SN Parameters Instrument Remarks

1. Fecal Coliform DelAqua Incubation at 45 º C

2. pH HANNA

3. Turbidity “Thermo” Turbidity meter

4. Temperature Thermometer

5. Iron and Arsenic ENPHO test kits Selected places

Water Samples were collected in acid washed, sterilized plastic bottles;

Analysis for all parameters were performed in the same day of water sampling

School visit

Monitoring and survey was conducted in 50 schools from: Dang – 27 schools out of 47 schools; Kapilvastu – 23 schools out of 47 schools.

Monitoring and research team:Name Agency District

Bipin Dangol ENPHO Dang

Manorath Bajgain ENPHO Dang & Kapilvastu

Hari Budhathoki ENPHO Kapilvastu

Chintu Thapa ENPHO Dang & Kapilvastu

Raj Kumar Acharya and Raj Kumar Pokharel WSSDO Dang

Yam Lal Jaisi WSSDO Kapilvastu

School Survey

Prepared structured questionnaire form: If the options are in use/operation, interviewed Teachers, Child clubs, Operators

If the options are not in use/operation, interviewedOnly teachers

Monitoring checklist to assess condition of POU options that are in operation;

Focus group discussions with child clubs to understand student’s Knowledge and perception on POU options

Results and discussions

POU Options in operation

Only 12 schools (44.4%) out of 27 visited schools were using at least one POU options;

POU options Distributed No. in use % in use

Large CS Filter 92 33 in 10 schools 36%

Clay CS Filter 119 5 in 3 schools 4%

Tank Chlorination 1 0 0%

SODIS bottles 1750 0 0%

In Dang

Filters in operation, Dang

POU Options in operation

Only 2 schools out of 23 visited schools were using at least one POU options;

POU options Distributed No. in use % in use

Large CS Filter 20 0 0%

Clay CS Filter 52 2 in 1 school 3.8%

Arsenic Biosand Filter 2 0 0%

Biosand Filter 11 1 in 1 school 9%

In Kapilvastu

Filters in operation, Kapilvastu

Reasons for not using Large CS filter

In Kapilvastu In Dang

Breakage of filter spout and candles are main reasons for not using Large CS Filter

Pictures of Large CS Filter not in use

Reasons for not using Clay CS Filter

In Kapilvastu In Dang

Breakage of filter, spout & disc are the main problems; In Kapilvastu users perceived water from artesian well is safe and don’t require

any treatment

Pictures of Clay CS Filter not in use

Reasons for stopping use of BSF

Reasons for stopping use of Arsenic BSF

Reasons for stopping SODIS (both districts)

Taste and Smell of Treated water (Filters in use, Dang)

Treated vs. Raw Water

Teachers Students OperatorsLCSF CCSF LCSF CCSF LCSF CCSF

TasteBad 20

Same 40 66.67 20 33.33 40 33.33Better 40 33.33 80 66.67 60 66.67

SmellBad 20

Same 50 66.67 60 100 70Better 30 33.33 40 - 30 100

All figures are in % LCSF: Large CS Filter; CCSF: Clay CS Filter

Treated vs. Raw WaterTeachers Students Operators

LCSF SCSF LCSF SCSF LCSF SCSF

LookBad 20

Same 50 66.67 40 33.33 50 33.33Better 30 33.33 60 66.67 50 66.67

Temp.Bad 60 20 20

Same 40 33.33 50 50 33.33Better - 66.67 30 100 30 66.67

Appearance and Temperature of Treated water (Filters in use, Dang)

All figures are in % LCSF: Large CS Filter; CCSF: Clay CS Filter

Perception of teachers (not in use, Dang)

Treated vs. raw water Small CS filter Large CS filter SODIS Chlorination

TASTE

Bad 10 100Same 80 50 60Better 20 40 40

SMELL

Bad 100Same 80 60 60Better 20 40 40

LOOK

BadSame 40 30 40 100Better 60 70 60

TEMP.

Bad 40 50 20Same 40 30 60 100Better 20 20 20

Treated vs. Raw WaterTeachers Students Operator

CSF Biosand CSF Biosand CSF Biosand

Taste

BadSame √ √ √Better √ √ √

Smell

BadSame √ √ √Better √ √ √

Taste and Smell of Treated water (Filters in use, Kapilvastu)

Treated vs. Raw Water

Teachers Students OperatorCSF Biosand CSF Biosand CSF Biosand

Look

BadSame √ √ √Better √ √ √

Temp.

BadSame √ √ √Better √ √ √

Appearance and Temperature of Treated water (Filters in use, Kapilvastu)

Perception of teachers (not in use, Kapilvastu)

Treated vs. Raw water CS filter Biosand filter

Arsenic biosandfilter

TASTE (%)Bad

Same 100 90 100Better 10

SMELL (%)Bad

Same 100 90 100Better 10

Treated vs. Raw water CS filter Biosand filter

Arsenic biosandfilter

LOOK (%)Bad

Same 100 100 100Better

TEMPERATURE (%)Bad 10

Same 100 90 10Better

Perception of teachers (not in use, Kapilvastu)

• Fecal Coliform• Turbidity• Iron and Arsenic• pH

Technical performance

Performance of Large CSF (Fecal coliform)

Average removal 60% 6 out of 13 filters

removed 100% fecal coliforms

5 out of 13 filters have 0% removal

0% 0% 0%

100%100%

0%

97% 100%100%100%100%

87.8%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

FIlter number

Fecal coliform removal by Large CSF (n=13)

Turbidity removal by large CS Filter

pH in Large CS Filter

7.1

6.7

7 7

7.5

7.7

7.4

7.6

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.1

7.7

7.27.1

7

7.67.7

7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8

7.5

7.8

7.1

7.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

FIlter number

pH In pH Out

Efficiency of Clay CSF (n=3)

Filter No.

Fecal coliform (cfu/100ml) Removal (%) District

Raw water Treated water

1. 1000 0 100 Dang

2. 70 0 100 Dang

3. 5 0 100 Kapilvastu

Filter No.

Turbidity (NTU) Removal (%) District

Raw water Treated water

1. 19 5.5 71.1 Dang

2. 5.7 8.2 -43.9 Dang

3. 7.1 3.3 53.5 Kapilvastu

Fecal coliform:

Turbidity:

pH in Clay CS Filter

7.1

7.6

7

7.3

7.9

7.3

1 2 3

Filter number

pH In pH Out

Performance of Biosand Filter

Water Samples pH E.Coli.(cfu/100ml)

Iron(mg/L)

Arsenic(ppb)

Turbidity(NTU)

Raw Water 7.1 132 10 60 17

Treated Water 6.9 8 0 0 3.3

Suggestions from schools, Dang

Suggestions from schools, Kapilvastu

Willingness to re-operate the system

How School can contribute to re-operate the system?

Activities % 

Manage electricity  5.88

Buy and change tap/spout from the market 41.18

Buy  or repair water pump 35.29

Buy and change filter candles/disc 29.41

Manage space to install filter safely 11.76

Maintain pipeline 5.88

Observations

General observation for filters in use

Storage Condition

Filter Maintenance

Other observations

It was found that the systems that are operating well have been maintained (cleaned) either by operators or by teachers;

Most of the systems maintained (cleaned) by students were found broken;

Schools that were operating systems have also good sanitary conditions (clean school premise, clean toilets)

Conclusions

Only 14 schools out of 50 schools visited are using at least one POU options;

Large CS Filter has average fecal coliform removal of 60% which is satisfactory;

Clay CS Filter has excellent fecal coliform removal (however number of samples is only 3);

In most of the cases, filter user were found satisfied with taste, smell, look and temperature of treated water

Most of the schools are still willing to re-operate the system and ready to contribute if needed;

Filter operation and maintenance was found satisfactory

Recommendations

Before scaling up promotion of POU options in schools, WE NEED TO: Install robust filters/systems (modify the existing or

develop the new one); Develop strong monitoring mechanism at local level; Ensure availability of spare parts and Strengthen

supply chain; Explore possibility of improvement and protection of

water sources; Provide refresher trainings/orientation to school

teachers, operators an child club members

Recommendations

We can promote chlorination in schools having water tanks and using dug wells;

Filters/systems should be installed based on the need and demand from school;

Filter O&M should done only by trained operators and school teachers NOT by child club members;

Need to perform water quality monitoring of POU options in regular basis

Acknowledgements

USAID EAWAG WHO UNICEF DWSS WSSDO Dang and Kapilvastu All school teachers, child clubs and operators

Thank You and Let us

Work Together