Prepared By: Guided By:

Dhawal Agrawal (U05CE057) Dr. M. Mansoor Ahammed

Tapan Desai (U05CE059)
Dr. K. D. Yadav
Nimesh Tilani (U05CE074)
Vedant Pagare (U05CE076)

2008-2009

Civil Engineering Department

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
Technology
Surat - 395007
 WATER TREATMENT
The process of removing unwanted components and
contaminants from water with the help of various methods
is known as Water Treatment.
 Some Traditional Household Water Treatment
Methods used Even today are:
•Boiling (Heat Treatment)
•Chlorine Disinfection
•Household Filtration
•Household Solar Disinfection
•Conventional Coagulation/
Flocculation
•Lime Softening
Defining the Problem and Setting
the Objective of the Study

Study Methodology
Literature Reviews

Survey of the Study Area

Design of Questionnaire Format

Home Interview Surveys

Laboratory Testing

Data Processing & Analysis Behavior of Various Treatment

Devices

Predictions

Choice / Option in Household

Water Treatment System

Study Proposal

Report Preparation
• Activated Carbon and Mechanical Filters
• Water Softeners
• Iron Removal Equipment
1. Polyphosphate feeder
2. Chlorinator and filter
3. Aerator and filter
• Reverse Osmosis
• Disinfection Methods
• Ozonation
• Ultra-violet Radiation Method
 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
MAP OF SURAT
CITY
 Comparison of Various Available Household Water
Purifiers

Hindustan Zero B- Eureka Eureka Eureka Eureka Hi-tech- Kenstar Philips- Whirlpoo
Machine Unilever Pureit Zero B Forbes- Forbes- Forbes- Forbes- Water -Le pure WP 3893 l-
Features Puriline AquaSure Aquagua Aquaguard Aquagua Lagoon Purafresh
2L rd Total Sensa rd Platinum
Classic Integra7

Type of Water Storage Direct Storage Direct Storage Storage Storage Direct Direct Flow Direct Flow
Purifier Flow Flow Flow
Storage Capacity 9 -- 13 -- 9.5 8 6.5 -- -- --
(Litres) 

Methods of Purification

Purification Stages 4 3 4 3 4 7 7 3 3 5

Pre-Filter Purification

Silver-Impregnated
Activated Carbon
Purification

Ultra-Violet Purification

Reverse Osmosis

Other Methods Germ kill Post Carbon Active Argentum Health 5 Micron Inline Sediment Neo
Processor Filter (Silver Disinfectant Nano and taste Sediment Filter, Filter  Sense
and Impregnated) / Special Fresh+  Cartridge Pre and Post Filter
Unique Carbon  / Reverse Carbon Filter, and
Polisher Osmosis  Intensified Filter Post
and Ceramic Carbon
Filter with RO Filter 
Membrane
 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
 The various criteria filled in the survey
forms were selected and the different
devices found were bifurcated.
 Comparison was done between these
criteria individually and graphs were
prepared.
 These graphs and their tables are shown in

the following slides.

Income <1,00,0 1,00,0 5,00,00 >10,00,
00 00 – 0– 000
5,00,0 10,00,0
00 00
Houses( 5 57 27 11
%)
Sr Source Hous
. es
N (%)
o.
1 SMC 66
2 Boring 26
3 Tube Well 3

4 Lake/River/P 2
ond
5 Others 3
Water Houses
Used (%)
(liters)

<10 9
10 – 25 31
25 – 50 42
>50 18
Company Houses

Boiling 12

Candle 6

Filtration 8

Hitech Filter 2

Aquagaurd 33

Whirlpool 2

Phillips 2

Kenstar 4

Zero 3

Aquagaurd 20
R/O
Kent R/O 3

Aqua Sure 1

Forbes 4
Cost of Houses
Filter (%)
<1,000 13
1,000 to 9
2,500

2,500 to 28
5,000

>5,000 50
Maintenance Houses (%)
Period
Once a Year 25

Twice a Year 28

3 – 4 Times in 28
a Year
Monthly 11

Daily 8
Information Houses (%)
Source

Friend 27

Sales-Man 24

News Paper 16

TV 33
 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
Device Yes No
Hitech 2 0
Phillips 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
 Income
Devices <1,00,000 1,00,000 - 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 10,00,000 >10,00,000
Hitech 0 0 2 0
Phillips 0 0 2 0
Candle 1 5 0 0
Boiling 0 12 0 0
Aquagaurd 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 2
Kent R/O 0 0 3 0
Aqua Sure 1 0 0 0
Forbes 0 4 0 0
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 4
Whirlpool 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
 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
Sa Sample type Turbidity
mp (NTU)
le
No.
0 SMC 2
1 Boiled water 2
2 Eureka Forbes- 2
Aquagaurd
Classic
3 Philips WP 3893 2
4 Eureka Forbes 1.5
Sensa
5 Eureka Forbes 1.6
Aquasure
6 Hindustan 1.4
Unilever Pureit
7 Whirlpool – 1.4
Purafresh
platinum
8 Eureka Forbes 1.4
Aquagaurd
Integra-7
9 Kenstar Le pure 1.4
10 Zero B Puriline 1.7
2L
S Sample type pH
a
m
pl
e
N
0 SMC 6-7
o
1 Boiled water 6-7
2 Eureka 7-8
Forbes-
Aquagaurd
Classic
3 Philips WP 7-8
3893
4 Eureka 7-8
Forbes
Sensa
5 Eureka 7-8
Forbes
Aquasure
6 Hindustan 7-8
Unilever
Pureit
7 Whirlpool – 7-8
Purafresh
platinum
8 Eureka 7-8
Forbes
Aquagaurd
Integra-7
9 Kenstar Le 7-8
pure
1 Zero B 7-8
0 Puriline 2L
Sampl Sample Phenolpht Methyl Total
e No. type halein Orange alkalinity
Alkalinity( Alkalinity T(mg/L)
mg/L) (mg/L)
0 SMC 0 252 252

1 Boiled 0 288 288

water
2 Eureka 0 240 240
Forbes-
Aquaga
urd
Classic
3 Philips 0 288 288
WP
3893
4 Eureka 0 268 268
Forbes
Sensa
5 Eureka 0 252 252
Forbes
Aquasur
e
6 Hindust 0 196 196
an
Unilever
Pureit
7 Whirlpo 0 240 240
ol –
Purafres
h
Platinu
8 Eureka
m 0 80 80
Forbes
Aquaga
urd
Integra-
7
9 Kenstar 0 260 260
Le pure
10 Zero B 0 284 284
Puriline
2L
 S Sample Total Calcium Magnesiu
ampl type Hardnes Hardness m
e s(mg/L) (mg/L) Hardness
No. (mg/L)
0 SMC 156 84 72

1 Boiled 156 92 64
water
2 Eureka 144 88 56
Forbes-
Aquaga
urd
Classic
3 Philips 140 84 56
WP
3893
4 Eureka 128 68 60
Forbes
Sensa
5 Eureka 156 100 56
Forbes
Aquasur
e
6 Hindust 120 72 48
an
Unilever
Pureit
7 Whirlpo 120 72 48
ol –
Purafres
h
Platinu
8 Eureka
m 32 16 16
Forbes
Aquaga
urd
Integra-
7
9 Kenstar 112 68 44
Le Pure
10 Zero B 136 80 56
Puriline
2L
 S Sample type Total
amp Chloride(mg/L)
le
No.
0 SMC 69.97
1 Boiled water 73.97
2 Eureka 71.97
Forbes-
Aquagaurd
3 Philips WP 75.97
Classic
3893
4 Eureka Forbes 83.97
Sensa
5 Eureka Forbes 85.97
Aquasure
6 Hindustan 65.97
Unilever Pureit
7 Whirlpool – 73.97
Purafresh
Platinum
8 Eureka Forbes 31.99
Aquagaurd
Integra-7
9 Kenstar Le 79.97
Pure
10 Zero B Puriline 71.97
2L
Sa Samp T T T T Tota Free C
mpl le ube ube ube ube l avai ombi
e type A B1 B2 C avai labl ned
no. labl e avail
e resi able
resi dual resid
dual A-B1 ual
0 SMC 0 0 0 0 0
C-B 0 0
2

1 Boiled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
water

2 Eurek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
Forbe
s-
Aqua
gaurd
3 Philip
Classi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s
c WP
3893

4 Eurek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
Forbe
s
5 Eurek
Sensa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
Forbe
s
Aquas
6 Hindu
ure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
stan
Unilev
er
Pureit
7 Whirl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
pool –
Purafr
esh
Platin
um

8 Eurek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
Forbe
s
Aqua
gaurd
Integr
9 Kenst
a-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ar Le
Pure
10 Zero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B
Purilin
e 2L
Sample Sample Colonies MPN index
No. type found P= 100 ml
during
Completed
Test
0 SMC No 5.1

1 Boiled No <2.2
water
2 Eureka No <2.2
Forbes-
Aquagaurd
Classic
3 Philips WP No <2.2
3893
4 Eureka No <2.2
Forbes
Sensa
5 Eureka Yes >16
Forbes
Aquasure
6 Hindustan No <2.2
Unilever
Pureit
7 Whirlpool – No 5.1
Purafresh
Platinum
8 Eureka No <2.2
Forbes
Aquagaurd
Integra-7
9 Kenstar Le No <2.2
Pure
10 Zero B No <2.2
Puriline 2L
 Tests showed that some devices are better in terms of efficiency.
However, conclusion cannot be made based only on testing one
sample. Detailed long term tests have to be conducted in order to
compare various devices.
 Some devices are costly. So, the lower and medium income
groups 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 device
has been very satisfactory.
 The initial cost and the maintenance cost for these two devices
are also quiet affordable.
 The only drawback with these devices is that they have proved to
be inefficient in removal of microorganism from the influent
source water.
 Other than these devices all the other devices have proved to be
almost equal in all the criteria, so any of these devices can be
preferred after the above three.
 Out of these the ones with the RO Technology or Reverse Osmosis
Technology integrating device should be preferred as this
technology of water treatment has proved to be very efficient.
 The user should opt for the regular maintenance plans that are
available with the companies manufacturing devices or should
themselves go for regular maintenance of the devices themselves.
 It was also observed from the survey that the user generally
bought the device just because a good friend of theirs suggested
the device. It should be a regular practice with the user that a
detailed 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 should
also be considered which could save him money over a long
period of time.
 The survey analysis shows that Aquagaurd Classic and Aquagaurd
Ro are the most preferred water treatment devices. These devices
have produced a good performance in almost all criteria of
maintenance, satisfaction level, use, etc.
 The maximum number of users use 25-50 liters of water with SMC
water 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 more
than Rs. 5000/-
 The maintenance awareness of the user for other devices except
Aquagaurd Classic and Aquagaurd RO is comparatively low so
their 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 companies
targeting to increase their sales can concentrate on advertising
their device through television more compared to the other
media.
 It can also be seen that the maximum users of treatment devices
accommodate 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 the
manufacturers should concentrate on manufacturing or
formulating such devices which are more cheaper and affordable
so that the lower income group (<Rs.1,00,000/-) can also buy
these devices and thus the quality of life along with the sales of
the company would improve.
 It can also be seen that the maintenance of device is done on a
yearly basis i.e. either once or twice or 3-4 times a year. The
companies should therefore introduce packages which give the
user the privilege of getting regular maintenance on monthly,
fortnightly or weekly basis. This way the maintenance awareness
as well as the performance and age of the device would improve
considerably.
 It can also be seen that the satisfaction level of users vary largely
for the same devices and for all the devices too. Thus this shows
that the consistency of performance of a device over a period of
time is poor. So concentration should be laid on the consistent
performance of the device throughout its service life.
 Influent water (SMC) in the present study was conforming to the
standards for all the water quality parameters tested. Thus, the
true potential of the different water treatment devices cannot be
compared in the present study. For comparing the different
devices a long duration study should be conducted by collection a
large number of samples from different devices at different times.
 Most of the devices tested here are generally used for treating
public water supplies like SMC water which has undergone
complete treatment at a treatment plant. Thus, the quality of
treatment water is generally expected to be good, which indicates
a limited role for household water purification device. People,
however, still prefer to use a household device as they believe the
water supplies by SMC are often contaminated.
 Efficiency of different household water treatment devices should
also be compared by performing challenge tests with high
concentration of chemical and microbiologcal contaminations in
the influent.
 It can be seen from the experimentation that the turbidity of the
influent source water sample itself is way below the acceptable
limits of Standard water quality parameters. The treatment
devices also either keep the turbidity same or reduce the
turbidity. Thus, the performance of all the devices is satisfactory
as 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 quality
parameters and the treatment devices make no change in the pH
so the pH performance of the treatment devices is satisfactory.
 It can be seen from the graph of alkalinity that the influent source
water sample has alkalinity above the desired limit but within the
acceptable limits of standard water quality parameters. The
treatment devices make improvements in alkalinity in different
scales and also the alkalinity of effluent treated water sample is
within the acceptable range. Thus the alkalinity performance of
treatment devices is also satisfactory but there is a scope of
improvement too in this area.
 The total hardness of influent source water sample is way below
the desired limits and the treatment devices make further
reduction in hardness too. Thus the hardness of treated water
sample is within the desired range.
 The chloride content of all the samples including influent source
water 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 the
treatment for free available residual chlorine is not needed and
satisfactory.
 From the graph it can be seen that the influent source water
sample showed presence of microorganism. Some devices have
proved to be unsatisfactory in treating the water biologically to
remove microorganism.
 However, it should be noted that only one sample was analyzed
and more samples should be analyzed before arriving at any
conclusion.