Table 1 General properties of some of household water treatment technologies, strengths, drawbacks and percentage of applicability
Treatment technique (s) | Treatment process | Strengths | Drawbacks | Percentage of applicability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Boiling (until first big bubble appears), i.e., 100 °C | Heating/boiling water to approximately 100 °C | Effective in removing most of pathogens (bacteria and protozoa) Easy, simple and widely accepted method | It can be costly due to high fuel consumption Doesn’t remove chemicals, turbidity, taste, smell and color | Over 98.5% efficiency in E. coli removal (Burleson et al. 2019; Sobsey and Brown 2012) |
Chlorination | Chemical Treatment | Effective at deactivating most bacteria and viruses that cause diarrheal disease Ease-of-use and acceptability Scalability and low cost | Not effective at inactivating some protozoa, such as Cryptosporidium Ineffectiveness in turbidity, but also potential taste and odor objections Potential long-term effects of chlorination by-products | The Safe Water System has been implemented in over 35 countries. (Ghernaout, 2014, 2017; Li et al. 2022) |
Solar disinfection | Heating by Sunlight radiations | Proven reduction of viruses, bacteria and protozoa in water Simplicity of use and acceptability No cost if using recycled plastic bottles Recontamination is low because water is served and stored in the small narrow necked bottles | Need to pretreat water of higher turbidity with flocculation and/or filtration Limited volume of water that can be treated all at once Uncertainty in the Length of time required to treat water | Over 2 million people in 28 developing countries (Bitew et al. 2018; Jeon et al. 2022) |
Ceramic Filtration | Filtration of contaminants | Proven reduction of bacteria and protozoa in water Simplicity of use and acceptability Long life if the filter remains unbroken A low one-time cost | Not as effective against viruses No chlorine residual protection—can lead to recontamination A low flow rate of 1–3 L per hour for non-turbid waters Filters and receptacles must be cleaned regularly, especially after filtering turbid water | Ceramic filters have been implemented in over 20 countries (Bulta and Micheal 2019; Kallman et al. 2011; Lantagne et al. 2010) |
Slow Sand Filtration (Bio-Sand Filter) | Filtration of contaminants | Proven reduction of protozoa and most bacteria High flow rate of up to 0.6 L per minute Simplicity of use and acceptability Visual improvement of the water Local production (if clean, appropriate sand is available) One-time installation with low maintenance requirements Long span (estimated > 10 years) with no recurrent expenses | Not as effective against viruses No chlorine residual protection Can lead to recontamination Routine cleaning can harm the bio-layer and decrease effectiveness Difficult to transport due to weight—high initial cost | Bio-Sand Filter projects are established in 24 developing countries (El-Taweel and Ali 2000; Mulugeta et al. 2020; Verma et al. 2017) |
Flocculant-disinfectant Powder | Chemical treatment and filtration | Proven reduction of bacteria, viruses and protozoa in water Removal of heavy metals and chemicals Increased free chlorine protection against contamination Easy to transport and long shelf life of sachets | Multiple steps are necessary (require training or demonstration) Requires a lot of equipment (2 buckets, cloth and a stirrer) The higher relative cost per liter of water treated | Efficiency in the removal of Arsenic from water for over 88% (Okoh et al. 2020; Norton et al. 2009) |