Need for treatment of water

The principal sources of water for urban and rural

households range over a number of options. An estimated
50% of rural households were served by
tubewell/handpump, while an estimated 26% and an
estimated 19% were served by well and tap, respectively.
About 70% and 21% of urban households reported being
served by tap and tubewell/ handpump, respectively.
During 2012 in rural India, 88.5 percent households had
access to improved source of drinking water while the
figure was 95.3 percent in urban India. Improved sources
of drinking water include: bottled water, piped water into
dwelling, piped water to yard/plot, public
tap/standpipe, tube well/borehole, protected well,
protected spring, and rainwater collection.
However, the problem of contamination is prevalent in
these sources of water supply as well. The Sukthankar
Committee (2001) report to the Government of
Maharashtra reported results from 136,000 daily tests
carried out on water samples from various municipal
corporations in Maharashtra in 1999. 10% of samples were
contaminated, with 14% of samples from Mumbai being
contaminated. Ground water in 28 cities was found to
exceed permissible levels of fluoride, ammonia and
hardness (January to March 2003, Clean India report). A
2003 survey of 1000 locations in Kolkata found that 87%
of water reservoirs serving residential buildings and 63%
of taps had high levels of faecal contamination.
Municipal water supply has also been found to contain a
high level of contaminants. Even bottled water is not
completely safe. A 2003 study (subsequently repeated in
2006) by the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi
found that most popular brands of bottled water had high
levels of pesticides (CSE 2003).
Yet another source of water supply are the water vendors
who act as intermediaries in areas where water supply is
short. The vendors either re-selling water from a

municipally-supplied standpipe or obtaining water from a

groundwater source and transporting it by tanker to slum
areas where residents purchase it. Such privately vended
water -- which seldom has any quality controls -- sells for
from 5 to 50 times the price of piped city-supplied water.
Few urban residents in India (1% according to the National
Sample Survey, 54th Round) depend exclusively on water
vendors, but during periods of scarcity they are the
mechanism of water service provision to the poor (and in
some cases the rich as well).
Current water purification practices
In 2012, 32.3 percent and 54.4 percent of households in
rural India and urban India respectively had treated water
by any method before drinking.
Techniques generally used for the purification of water
include boiling, filtration and treatment with chemicals. In
the past, filtration has been the preferred method of
treatment.
According to the NSSO report on Drinking Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene in India, 54th Round (January
June 1998):
In rural areas, about 18% of households reported to have
filtered their drinking water but very few households
reported to have chemically treated, or boiled, water
before drinking. The situation was slightly better in urban
areas, where the percentages of households reporting
boiling and filtering of drinking water before consumption
were 11% and 35%, respectively.
Only a few households reported as treating their drinking
water chemically before use in rural or urban areas.
However, a significantly higher percentage of households
in urban areas filtered or boiled their drinking water than
in rural areas. The survey results indicate that an
estimated 36% of urban households practiced filtration
(23% with plain cloth, 13% by some other process) as
against an estimated 18% in rural areas. Further, 11% of

urban households resorted to boiling while only 4%

reported this practice in rural areas.
Using the 1999 National Family Health Survey, Jalan,
Somanathan and Chaudhuri (2003) report that 47% of
households do not use any point-of-use (or in-home)
purification method, with 32% of the top wealth quartile
also not purifying their water.
The National Survey of Rural Community Water Supplies
was carried out on behalf of UNICEF India by the Centre for
Symbiosis of Technology, Environment and
Management(STEM), Bangalore, in 2000. The study
conducted by STEM covered the rural areas of nine states,
namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and
Uttar Pradesh.
The following graph from the study demonstrates the
percentage of households that have adopted filtration and
boiling as techniques of water treatment and those who do
not treat water at all:

According to the study, for the average household, the

issue of water quality is not apparent unless the water is
dirty. In most states, over 80 per cent of the households
did not perceive any problem with the quality of their
drinking water.
As a result, about 79 per cent of the households did not
carry out any treatment of their drinking water. However,
in some states maybe due to the visible quality of

drinking water or from better knowledge some treatment

methods were used.
This clearly demonstrates that awareness is a major issue.
If demand for water purification systems such as the CDS
is low, one of the causative factors could be the fact that
households fail to recognize the need for water
purification. Thus, demand can be boosted by information
dissemination. Given that the households who are
uninformed about the importance of water purification are
also likely to be poor, the cheap price at which the CDS is
being sold will appeal to them. One thing that should be
kept in mind is that cheap filtration systems are also being
developed, such as the Tata Swach, being sold for under
Rs. 1000. Considering the prevailing preference for
filtration over chemical treatment, the CDS will also have
to compete with the Tata Swach in terms of pricing.
Nature of water purification systems demanded in
low-income rural/urban India
In rural areas and low-income urban communities,
expensive water purification systems are not very viable
because of the relatively high cost and the complicated
technology involved. The complicated technology implies
that certain maintenance costs will be incurred, further
increasing the overall cost of accessing clean water.
Therefore, in order to boost demand for water purification
systems, it is important to
a) convey to these households the need for such a system
b) demonstrate the ease-of-use, affordability and efficacy
of the CDS to prompt them to choose this option over
other techniques.
There is also likely to be an inherent pull towards the use
of traditional methods of purification, particularly among
the less educated, because of the lower costs involved in
these methods. These alternative options include:
Strychancs potatroum (Kataka seeds) are natural
coagulants used for the purification of muddy water.

 Morenga olifers (drumstick) seeds are used as a

coagulant. They also inhibit the growth of bacteria
and fungi.
Vetiveria zizanoides (khas) are laid in a clay jar which
has a few tiny holes in its bottom.
Dusting of water with plant ashes, earth from termite
hills, paddy husks or crushed seed coats from elaichi
(Elettaria cardamum) improves clarity of water.
Osimum sanctum (Tulsi) is a water purifier with
antibacterial an insecticidal properties. Water filtered
through this layer of roots is not only clear but also
has a pleasant smell.
In order to ensure demand for the CDS it is important to
relay that the CDS is a more effective device that provides
a greater guarantee of clean water at a price that is
reasonable.
Chlorination v/s other substitutes
Chlorine is used to treat water contaminated with
ammonia and bacterial impurities. The alternatives to
chlorine treatment in these situations are UV radiation
treatment and boiling.
It becomes relevant to demonstrate the advantages of
chlorination over these options to boost demand for
chlorination treatment as against its substitutes.
UV disinfection systems are less cost-effective than
chlorine and are not really viable for use in low-income
households in rural and urban areas. They also have
regular maintenance needs resulting in recurring costs.
So, this doesnt provide a very good substitute to chorine.
However, the safety of chlorination treatment has been
called into question and UV treatment is slowly gaining
more support.

However, boiling remains a viable alternative. It is then

important to portray boiling as an inadequate form of
water purification that needs to be supported by
chlorination to ensure maximum possible purification of
the water.