Water Purifying Devices
-
Upload
tapan12345 -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Water Purifying Devices
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
1/42
Civil Engineering Department
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
TechnologySurat - 395007
Prepared By:
Dhawal Agrawal (U05CE057)
Tapan Desai (U05CE059)
Nimesh Tilani (U05CE074)
Vedant Pagare (U05CE076)
Guided By:
Dr. M. Mansoor Ahammed
Dr. K. D. Yadav
2008-2009
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
2/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
3/42
Defining the Problem and Settingthe Objective of the Study
Literature Reviews
Survey of the Study Area
Home Interview Surveys
Design of Questionnaire Format
Data Processing & Analysis Behavior of Various TreatmentDevices
Predictions
Choice / Option in HouseholdWater Treatment System
Laboratory Testing
Study Proposal
Report Preparation
Study Methodology
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
4/42
Activated Carbon and Mechanical Filters Water Softeners Iron Removal Equipment
1. Polyphosphate feeder2. Chlorinator and filter
3. Aerator and filter
Reverse Osmosis Disinfection Methods Ozonation Ultra-violet Radiation Method
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
5/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
6/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
7/42
Location and regional linkage Historical development Demographic profile
Urbanization and population growth in Gujarat
Demographic dynamics of Surat Density pattern Economic profile Employment structure Industrial activities
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
8/42
MAP OF SURATCITY
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
9/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
10/42
Survey was done in 100 houses which were randomly selected. A questionnaire was filled by the candidate who approached a
household member personally. The questionnaire contained various aspects of the household
like: Family size
Annual household income Water supply source Treatment Device used Price Amount of water treated everyday Media through which device was known Time since the device is being used
Maintenance procedure used Maintenance Frequency Amount spent on maintenance Satisfaction
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
11/42
The various criteria filled in the surveyforms were selected and the differentdevices found were bifurcated.
Comparison was done between thesecriteria individually and graphs wereprepared.
These graphs and their tables are shown in
the following slides.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
12/42
Income 10,00,
000
Houses(
%)
5 57 27 11
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
13/42
Sr
.N
o.
Source Hous
es(%)
1 SMC 66
2 Boring 26
3 Tube Well 3
4 Lake/River/P
ond
2
5 Others 3
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
14/42
Water
Used
(liters)
Houses
(%)
50 18
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
15/42
Company Houses
Boiling 12
Candle 6
Filtration 8
Hitech Filter 2
Aquagaurd 33
Whirlpool 2
Phillips 2
Kenstar 4
Zero 3
Aquagaurd
R/O
20
Kent R/O 3
Aqua Sure 1
Forbes 4
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
16/42
Cost of
Filter
Houses
(%)
5,000 50
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
17/42
Maintenance
Period
Houses (%)
Once a Year 25
Twice a Year 28
3 4 Times in
a Year
28
Monthly 11
Daily 8
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
18/42
Information
Source
Houses (%)
Friend 27
Sales-Man 24
News Paper 16
TV 33
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
19/42
SMC Boring Other River/Lake/Pond Well Total
Hitech 2 2
Phillips 2 2
Candle 4 2 6
Boiling 5 5 2 12
Aquagaurd 25 6 2 33
Whirlpool 2 2
Filtration 4 4 8
Kenstar 2 2 4
Zero B 2 1 3
Aquagaurd R/O 14 5 1 20
Kent R/O 3 3
Aqua Sure 1 1
Forbes 4 4
TOTAL 66 26 3 2 3 100
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
20/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
21/42
Device Yes No
Hitech 2 0Phillips 0 2
Candle 6 0
Boiling 4 8
Aquagaurd 15 18
Whirlpool 0 2
Filtration 7 1
Kenstar 4 0
Zero B 2 1
Aquagaurd R/O 9 11
Kent R/O 0 3
Aqua Sure 0 1
Forbes 0 4
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
22/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
23/42
Devices
Income
10,00,000
Hitech 0 0 2 0
Phillips 0 0 2 0
Candle 1 5 0 0
Boiling 0 12 0 0Aquagaurd 0 20 9 4
Whirlpool 0 0 2 0
Filtration 2 4 2 0
Kenstar 0 0 0 4
Zero B 1 1 0 1
Aquagaurd R/O 0 11 7 2Kent R/O 0 0 3 0
Aqua Sure 1 0 0 0
Forbes 0 4 0 0
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
24/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
25/42
Device Poor Average Good Excellent
Hitech 0 0 2 0
Phillips 0 0 0 2
Candle 0 2 4 0
Boiling 2 4 2 4
Aquagaurd 0 4 25 4Whirlpool 0 0 2 0
Filtration 0 4 4 0
Kenstar 0 0 0 4
Zero B 0 0 0 3
Aquagaurd R/O 0 7 5 8
Kent R/O 0 0 0 3
Aqua Sure 0 0 0 1
Forbes 0 0 2 2
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
26/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
27/42
Sampling program and procedure General precautions Sampling for water Sampling for bacteriological analysis Collection of samples from taps Collection of sample direct from a source
Size of sample Preservation and storage
Turbidity pH Carbonate, Bicarbonate & Hydroxyl Alkalinity Hardness Chloride Chlorine Residual Coliform
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
28/42
1.7Zero B Puriline2L
10
1.4Kenstar Le pure9
1.4Eureka ForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7
8
1.4Whirlpool Purafreshplatinum
7
1.4HindustanUnilever Pureit
6
1.6Eureka ForbesAquasure
51.5Eureka ForbesSensa4
2Philips WP 38933
2Eureka Forbes-AquagaurdClassic
2
2Boiled water1
2SMC0
Turbidity(NTU)
Sample typeSamp
leNo.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
29/42
7-8Zero BPuriline 2L
10
7-8Kenstar Lepure
9
7-8EurekaForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7
8
7-8Whirlpool Purafresh
platinum
7
7-8HindustanUnileverPureit
6
7-8EurekaForbesAquasure
5
7-8Eureka
ForbesSensa
4
7-8Philips WP3893
3
7-8EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic
2
6-7Boiled water1
6-7SMC0
pHSample typeSample
No
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
30/42
2842840Zero BPuriline
2L
10
2602600KenstarLe pure
9
80800EurekaForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7
8
2402400Whirlpool Purafres
hPlatinum
7
1961960HindustanUnileverPureit
6
2522520EurekaForbesAquasure
5
2682680EurekaForbesSensa
4
2882880PhilipsWP3893
3
2402400EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic
2
2882880Boiled
water
1
2522520SMC0
TotalalkalinityT(mg/L)
MethylOrange
Alkalinity(mg/L)
Phenolphthalein
Alkalinity(mg/L)
Sampletype
Sample No.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
31/42
5680136Zero BPuriline
2L
10
4468112KenstarLe Pure
9
161632EurekaForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7
8
4872120Whirlpool Purafresh
Platinum
7
4872120HindustanUnileverPureit
6
56100156EurekaForbesAquasure
5
6068128EurekaForbesSensa
4
5684140PhilipsWP3893
3
5688144Eureka
Forbes-AquagaurdClassic
2
6492156Boiledwater
1
7284156SMC0
Magnesium
Hardness(mg/L)
CalciumHardness
(mg/L)
TotalHardness(mg/L)
Sampletype
Sampl
eNo.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
32/42
71.97Zero B Puriline2L
10
79.97Kenstar LePure
9
31.99Eureka ForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7
8
73.97Whirlpool PurafreshPlatinum
7
65.97HindustanUnilever Pureit
6
85.97Eureka ForbesAquasure
5
83.97Eureka ForbesSensa
4
75.97Philips WP3893
3
71.97EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic
2
73.97Boiled water1
69.97SMC0
TotalChloride(mg/L)
Sample typeSamp
leNo.
CFreeTotaTTTTSampSa
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
33/42
0000000ZeroBPuriline 2L
10
0000000Kenstar LePure
9
0000000EurekaForbesAquagaurdIntegra-7
8
0000000Whirlpool PurafreshPlatinum
7
0000000HindustanUnileverPureit
6
0000000EurekaForbesAquasure
5
0000000EurekaForbesSensa
4
0000000Philips WP3893
3
0000000EurekaForbes-AquagaurdClassic
2
0000000Boiledwater
1
0000000SMC0
Combinedavailableresidual
Freeavailable
residualA-B
1
Total
available
residualC-B
2
TubeC
TubeB
2
TubeB
1
TubeA
Sampletype
Sample
no.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
34/42
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
35/42
Tests showed that some devices are better in terms of efficiency.
However, conclusion cannot be made based only on testing onesample. Detailed long term tests have to be conducted in order tocompare various devices.
Some devices are costly. So, the lower and medium incomegroups can hardly afford to use this device.
Some devices have proved to be very popular among users. The
maintenance awareness, ease, performance, etc for this devicehas been very satisfactory.
The initial cost and the maintenance cost for these two devicesare also quiet affordable.
The only drawback with these devices is that they have proved to
be inefficient in removal of microorganism from the influentsource water.
Other than these devices all the other devices have proved to bealmost equal in all the criteria, so any of these devices can bepreferred after the above three.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
36/42
Out of these the ones with the RO Technology or Reverse Osmosis Technology integrating device should be preferred as thistechnology of water treatment has proved to be very efficient.
The user should opt for the regular maintenance plans that areavailable with the companies manufacturing devices or shouldthemselves go for regular maintenance of the devices themselves.
It was also observed from the survey that the user generallybought the device just because a good friend of theirs suggestedthe device. It should be a regular practice with the user that adetailed knowledge of maintenance required by the device,technology used, power consumed, maximum service life, etc
should be taken. The user should not just take the initial price into account while
buying equipment. The maintenance cost and service life shouldalso be considered which could save him money over a longperiod of time.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
37/42
The survey analysis shows that Aquagaurd Classic and AquagaurdRo are the most preferred water treatment devices. These deviceshave produced a good performance in almost all criteria ofmaintenance, satisfaction level, use, etc.
The maximum number of users use 25-50 liters of water with SMCwater as source and they come in the income group of Rs.5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/- and use a device whose price is morethan Rs. 5000/-
The maintenance awareness of the user for other devices exceptAquagaurd Classic and Aquagaurd RO is comparatively low sotheir performance is also affected and thus work should be done
to increase the awareness for maintenance of these devices. It can also be seen that a huge amount of users came to know
about the device from television as media. So the companiestargeting to increase their sales can concentrate on advertisingtheir device through television more compared to the othermedia.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
38/42
It can also be seen that the maximum users of treatment devicesaccommodate in the income group of Rs.1,00,000/- to
Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/ to Rs.10,00,000/- So themanufacturers should concentrate on manufacturing orformulating such devices which are more cheaper and affordableso that the lower income group (
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
39/42
Influent water (SMC) in the present study was conforming to thestandards for all the water quality parameters tested. Thus, thetrue potential of the different water treatment devices cannot becompared in the present study. For comparing the differentdevices a long duration study should be conducted by collection alarge number of samples from different devices at different times.
Most of the devices tested here are generally used for treatingpublic water supplies like SMC water which has undergonecomplete treatment at a treatment plant. Thus, the quality oftreatment water is generally expected to be good, which indicatesa limited role for household water purification device. People,however, still prefer to use a household device as they believe thewater supplies by SMC are often contaminated.
Efficiency of different household water treatment devices shouldalso be compared by performing challenge tests with highconcentration of chemical and microbiologcal contaminations inthe influent.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
40/42
It can be seen from the experimentation that the turbidity of theinfluent source water sample itself is way below the acceptablelimits of Standard water quality parameters. The treatmentdevices also either keep the turbidity same or reduce theturbidity. Thus, the performance of all the devices is satisfactoryas far as turbidity is considered.
The pH of the influent source sample and the effluent treated
sample is within the acceptable range of standard water qualityparameters and the treatment devices make no change in the pHso the pH performance of the treatment devices is satisfactory.
It can be seen from the graph of alkalinity that the influent sourcewater sample has alkalinity above the desired limit but within theacceptable limits of standard water quality parameters. The
treatment devices make improvements in alkalinity in differentscales and also the alkalinity of effluent treated water sample iswithin the acceptable range. Thus the alkalinity performance oftreatment devices is also satisfactory but there is a scope ofimprovement too in this area.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
41/42
The total hardness of influent source water sample is way belowthe desired limits and the treatment devices make furtherreduction in hardness too. Thus the hardness of treated watersample is within the desired range.
The chloride content of all the samples including influent sourcewater sample are way below the desired range of chloride content
and thus the performance of all treatment devices is satisfactory. The residual chlorine in the influent water sample is zero and the
same is the case with the effluent water sample. Thus thetreatment for free available residual chlorine is not needed andsatisfactory.
From the graph it can be seen that the influent source watersample showed presence of microorganism. Some devices haveproved to be unsatisfactory in treating the water biologically toremove microorganism.
However, it should be noted that only one sample was analyzedand more samples should be analyzed before arriving at any
conclusion.
-
8/14/2019 Water Purifying Devices
42/42