Safe storage made inexpensive

Reid,

Thanks for your interesting post. Do you have any cost data or economic information on the silver treated, pottery water purifiers?

Also, if any other participants have economic analyses of household water treatment technologies, I would like to learn of those.

Thanks,
Dan Campbell
Environmental Health at USAID

Other Activities

Dan and Friends,

Safe Water International (SWI) is working with several approaches through demonstration projects in central Mexico and Bolivia. Later this month we will install point-of-use systems in three villages in the Patzcuaro, Michoacan area of Mexico. One will use a sand filter and UV lamp, the second a multiple stage paper filter and the third a solar pasteurizer. In Bolivia we are working with a commercially manufactured SODIS like device which is designed to purify seven liters at a time and with the new LifeStraw.

In each case we are looking for convenience, economy, and durability, as well as a formula for community or personal ownership. We have seen some signs in Mexico that the regional water authority may be willing to accept operational and maintenance responsibility if they are allowed to consider small point-of-use devices as part of their regional program.

We are beginning to feel that the dependability and convenience of the purification approach are more important than cost. It is possible that a relatively sophisticated device can be used in a very poor area under the right ownership and financing scenarios.

Larry Siegel
Safe Water International
Carpinteria, CA USA
swi@cox.net

Ownership and financing

I've been the knowledge management specialist for the Hygiene Improvement Project (HIP) a USAID funded project operated by the Academy for Educational Development based in Washington, DC.

Larry mentioned in the last posting that the right ownership and financing schemes are likely more important than cost. I imagine that communities or consumers have to accept the methods being proposed, but what ownership could mean a different things. Can you clarify what you mean by "right ownership"?

Also, what different types of financing schemes have you tried and what experiences or lessons can you share about the success or failures of these financing schemes?

silver impregnation

Hello Reid

Thanks for your article. Basic Water Needs Foundation (BWNF) starts a small research program with silver impregnation of ceramic filters.
We will use 1. silver nitrate, converted into silver chloride using salt water. 2. Concentated colloidal silver in powder form (70% silver), diluted in water.

These 2 methods will be compared impregnating standard ceramic filters in India.
Quite a few bacterial tests will be done by a laboratory in Auroville (India).
I hope to hear if other silver impregnation methods do exist.
In case people are interested in the test results, write me a mail. Test results will be ready in about 6 weeks from now.

Klaas

Understanding household preferences and practices

Hello all. I'm Julia Rosenbaum and serve as HIPs Country Implementation Coordinator. I'm seeing a few of the postings are mentioning the importance of reflecting consumer preferences vis a vis the various point-of-use treatment technologies (appropriateness, acceptability, dependability); and the importance of talking about advantages and draw-backs of the different technologies.

An approach HIP promotes which we've adopted from other work is the "negotiating behavior change". Rather than promoting ideal behaviors leading to improved health outcomes, home visitors (be they Ministry of Health promoters, various community volunteers, sanitation inspectors, NGO promoters, etc.) can “negotiate” improved behaviors, often a dramatic shift in program practice. Instead of working as educators or distributors of water treatment products or practices, they become facilitators of change.

I also want to put in a plug for a tool HIP is currently developing with International Network to Promote Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage (who have been most helpful in organizing this e-Forum as well, thank you!). The research tool captures consumer preference and PRACTICE regarding use of various PoU products (SODIS, chlorination, boiling, filters), looking at a set of attributes most important to consumers (taste, temperature, convenience to use and maintain, etc). It guides planners through the process of "negotiating" changes in product and practice that reduce the burden of using without affecting effectiveness. Data and experience from the negotiating and problem-solving during the home visits can be applied to guidelines for negotiating solutions as the approach to home visits in the intervention.

The tool is still under development, but will soon be available on the HIP and Network websites. In the meantime, you can get a good idea of the method by downloading the executive summary of the first application of the reseach tool in Nepal.

www.hip.watsan.net

Safe storage

Household water storage - Mohammed Kamfut

Hello Reid and other participants,

I find the article on "safe storage made inexpensive" to be an interesting piece. Earthen pots are also widely used in northern Nigeria. For affordability, convinience and associated cooling effects, they have become the most popular water storage containers in this part of the country where temperatures can exceed 40C during peak dry seasons. For the reasons stated, we have been working with our State partners to promote use of the pots in conjunction with plastic taps as part of efforts on household water security intervention.

The pots come in different sizes with capacitiesranging from about 10 lires to 125 litres for the large size. Plastic taps are fixed at the base of the pots by carefully punching a hole the size of the tap and sealing the surroundings with cementing material. Alternatively a hole is made at the time of moulding the pot but before it is fired in a kiln. The purpose of the tap is to reduce the chances of contaminating the water through the usual practice of dipping different containers into the pot for drawing water.

This intervention has also been extended to some schools in rural communities. The pots used in the schools are medium sized and designed in a way that the mouth is constricted to avoid the practice of dipping any container. This arrangement ensures that the tap becomes the only outlet for collecting water. The pots are placed on fixed wooden, earthen or concrete stands conviniently located around the classrooms for drinking purposes by the pupils and teachers. In the target schools, the pupils themselves are responsible for periodic cleaning of the pots and filling them up with water on a rotational basis. For each pot, a plastic cup is always kept on top of the pot cover for use by pupils who do not have personal cups with them.

Although the issue of contamination from the pots have not been studied in detail, the introduction of taps proved to be a more hygienic approach as compared to the conventional practice of dipping different containers to draw out water. Where taps are not in use, households are encouraged through hygiene promotion campaigns to ensure the cleanliness of their water storage facilities and always maintain a separate container for drawing water out of the storage pot. To reduce the risks of contamination, cups with handles are encouraged as as against the use of bowls or other containers without handles when drawing out water.

Findings from a controlled random sampling done in 2002 for a few households have shown significant difference in ecoli between the pots fixed with taps and those that were not. The pots not fixed with taps were of two categories; those used with only one cup and others where multiple cups were used to draw out water. In addition to the porous nature of the pots you've indicated, contamination was attributed to other factors including water storage, cleanliness of the pots, type of pot covers used, dipping of fingers into the pots when drawing water and similar practices.

Considering the adoption of these pots as dominnt water storage containers, communities should be supported through appropriate interventions such as the suggested use of combined silver nitrate and salt water solution to make the pots safer for use. Will be interesting to test some units of the pots for ecoli and residual silver nitrate.

Thanks
Mohammed Kamfut
Unicef D Field Office
Bauchi, Nigeria

safe storage made inexpensive

Hi Mohammed Kamfut,

Thanks so much for sharing your enlightening news about the use of taps, at the bases of pottery water storage containers. It probably would have taken me a very long time to come up with this idea. There is another approach to the silver treatment of these pots, which should work well and is also well worth a little individual research, and in this case the table salt (sodium chloride) need not be used in a second step. Rather, following the silver nitrate treatment of the pot this is fired a second time. Alternatively it may be possible to apply the silver nitrate to the dried pot, prior to the one, and only firing of this. However, care must be taken not to use too much of the solution, since the pot will not have been fired, and will be subject to break-down, due to the excessive solution. In this case, in the testing the practicality will be largely about achieving a careful balance between the correct amount of silver to use, along with the minimal amount of solution.

For the simple tests needed I would like to recommend the use of the 3M product, PetriFilm Plates. And for the tests for the presence of silver there is a simple test by Hanna Instruments, among their ion specific approaches, a meter with four reagents. Purchased in bulk these tests ar fairly inexpensive, just 60 U.S. cents, per test of the 3M material, and $1.00 or $2.00 per test for the Hanna Instruments material. I recommend you purchase this last through the Hanna Instruments office in South Africa. But as I'm sure you are aware there will be a need for back-up tests, performed by a professional, reputable lab. The simple testing media are for a first round of the random tests, which will give quick results, and possibly cut down on the higher cost of the lab tests. And this will also create a good awareness among those workers who are engaged in the intervention.

I appreciate that you have shared the approach of the taps, since, along with the silver treatment I believe this to be among the lowest priced interventions. As such I have been wondering if it is too low priced to be taken seriously, since the application of the methodology would appear to discourage such approaches as tacking on an overhead amount as a percentage of the price of the material. Rather, some company would probably make an imported two step kit, with a lot of bells and whistles, and sell this for a much higher price, excessive to the affordability of the poor. I would estimate roughly, for the sizes of pot you have mentioned, that the price of silver nitrate required per container would be: US$0.10 for the 10 liter pot and under $1.00 for the 125 liter pot, and I would wholeheartedly encourage you, and others to pursue this.

Reid Harvey
www.SilverCeramicSystems.com

New topic

Still another alternative is discussed in this UN published document

http://www.ideassonline.org/bros_view_eng.asp?id=28

Peace
ron