Evaluation of Enhanced Ceramic Water Filtration (ECWF) for Microbial and Chemical Contaminant Removal for Households in Developing Countries

1
Evaluation of Enhanced Ceramic Water
Filtration (ECWF) for Microbial and Chemical
Contaminant Removal for Households in Developing
Countries 

• University of Colorado Research Project
• Review Panel Conference Call
• December 2, 2009

2
Introductions

• Research Team
• Chris Schulz, CDM
• Angela Bielefeldt, CU
• Scott Summers, CU
• Lauren Panasewicz, CU

• Review Panel
• Ned Breslin, WFP
• Susan Murcott, MIT
• Daniele Lantagne, CDC
• Robyn Wilmouth, PATH
• Mark Sobsey, UNC

3
Agenda

• Project Overview (PPT Presentation)
• ECWF Technology Features, Benefits and
  Drawbacks
• CU Research Plan Scope and Schedule
• Collaboration with HWTS Networks and Field
  Studies
• Project Review Panel Communications

4
Review Panel Discussion Questions

1. What are the benefits and limitations of ECWF
   system?
2. Does the CU research plan meet accepted standards
   for demonstrating treatment performance?
3. What types of field studies should be considered
   to demonstrate sustainability of ECWF system?
4. What grant funding options are available to
   complete CU research and follow-on field studies?
5. Are there opportunities to perform ECWF field
   testing with ongoing WFP, PATH and NGO projects?
6. Should a CWF research network be established to
   coordinate research activities and share
   information?

5
Estimated mean risk of illness by HWTS type and
study duration
Ceramic Water Filters With the current available
evidence, ceramic filters are the most effective
form of HWTS in the long-term disinfection-only
interventions appear to have poor if any
long-term public health benefit. Paul
Hunter School of Medicine, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK, EST, 2009
Hunter, P.A., EST, 2008
6
Benefits of Standard CWF System

• Proven reduction of bacteria and protozoa
• Proven reduction of diarrheal disease
• Acceptability to users
• Produces clear, cooler filtered water
• No chemicals or chlorine taste
• Affordable, one-time cost

7
Drawbacks of Standard CWF System

• Lower effectiveness against viruses
• Does not remove arsenic, fluoride or nitrite
• Potential for filtered water recontamination
• Potential for filter breakage
• Filter must be cleaned/scrubbed
• Low flowrate (1-2 L/hr) and limited raw water
  storage (8-10 L)
• Multiple refills to meet family needs
• Often unattractive appearance

8
Re-engineering the RDI-Cambodia CWF System
9
Potential Additional Benefits of Enhanced CWF
System

• Higher flowrate (6-8 L/hr) and more raw water
  storage (20 L)
• Effective removal of viruses, arsenic, fluoride,
  nitrate and TO
• Multiple barrier treatment (3 stages)
• Reduced risk of stagnant water and
  recontamination
• Reduced risk of filter breakage
• Reduced filter cleaning/scrubbing
• Attractive, appealing design
• Upgradable option for CWF

10
Drawbacks of Enhanced CWF System

• Higher unit cost
• Annual disposal and replacement of purity pack
• Taller and heavier unit
• Initial installation is more complicated
• Uncertain tradeoff between CWF element scrubbing
  and clogged purity pack cleaning

11
Cost Breakdown for RDI-Cambodia CWF and ECWF
Systems
12
CDM-Funded ECWF Research Project

• Objective Evaluate ECWF for chemical and
  microbial contaminant removal at higher
  filtration loading rates
• Research Approach
• Phase 1 Evaluate enhanced hydraulic capacity
• Side-by-side round-robin testing of CWF, ECWF,
  ECWF w/ PP
• Hydraulic performance testing using fill and draw
  method
• Phase 2 Evaluate extended treatment capacity
• Selection of optimal purity pack media (ZVI/sand
  blend) using RSSCTs
• Long-term contaminant break-through testing using
  continuous overflow arrangement
• TCLP testing for spent purity pack leaching