Arsenic in tubewell water and

approaches for sustainable

mitigation

Md. Jakariya
 Presentation Outline

1. Global and national extent of arsenic

contamination

2. Challenges to mitigate the arsenic problem

3. Approaches for sustainable mitigation

papers
 Arsenic in the Indus-Ganges-Meghna-Brahmaputra River System
Primary sources of arsenic:

Himalayan and surrounding

Himalaya region

Pakistan Nepal Arsenic is transported

through the sediments by
the river Ganges-Indus (and
their tributaries) up to the
India Bangladesh Bengal/Indus Delta.
 Arsenic in the groundwater of the
Bengal Delta Plain (BDP)
100

80
•There are 8-10 million wells;
% of Tested TW

65.16
60

40 29.19 30.15 29.12 •Approximately 30% exceeds

BDWS;
21.36 23.59
20 12.93

•>50% exceeds WHO guideline

8)
5)

)
)

)
)

)
1
90

15

72
3
4

A(

(0
(1
F(
(1

P(

l(2
N
ID
on

value;
SP

AA
P

ta
AN
IC

si

To
W

Vi
N

D
M

ld
BA

or
W

Organizaion (No of Upazila)

•25-30 million people are

50
exposed to arsenic poisoning;
40
•Mitigation and patient
% of Tested Wells

identification are limited

30

considering the magnitude of

20

the problem.
10

0
< 0.01 0.01-0.05 > 0.05
Arsenic Concentrations (mg/L)
 Arsenic problem in Bangladesh:
six major challenges

Investigate the mechanism of arsenic

contamination in the groundwater
Test all TW water of the country;

Raise community awareness about the

arsenic problem;
Identify and treat arsenicosis patients;
Provide safe water options where
needed;
Investigate on arsenic in the food chain
issues.
Approaches for sustainable mitigation
 Approach I:

Develop a low cost method to

test arsenic in tubewell water
 Assessment of the effectiveness of field test
kit results (n=12,532) and its validation

Indices for BWDS level WHO drinking

validation of the (50 µg/L) water guideline
field kit results (10 µg/L)

Prevalence (%) 64 74

False Positive (%) 4.4 3.6

False Negative (%) 2.3 5.1

Sensitivity 0.99 0.98

Specificity 0.92 0.91

Kappa test (k) (k=0.92, p<0.01) (k=0.91, p<0.01)

 Comparison between Merck field kit and
laboratory (AAS) results
Concentration Total number Percentage of TWs detected
range (in µg/L) of TWs correctly (%)
screened*
50 µg/L level 10 µg/L level

0-9.9 3384 (27) 99 95

10-24 376 (3) 98 47

25-49 501 (4) 87 86

50-99 877 (7) 70 98

100-499 6141 (49) 90 99

>500 1253 (10) 99 99

Total 12,532 (100) Average 91% Average 87%

*The values in parentheses represent the percentage of TWs in respective categories

 Findings on developing testing
methodology

 Merck kit could be used for mass scale As detection in

TW water in Bangladesh (99% sensitivity);

 As concentration between (10-24) for 10 µg/L and (50-99)

for 50 µg/L cut-off levels are mostly misclassified and
need to be reanalyzed in laboratory;

 Field kit allows screening quickly in the presence of

enthusiastic crowd, which helps to raise people’s
awareness about the As problem;

 In order to reduce false identification several

precautionary measures (eg. proper training, temp.
humidity etc.) need to be ensured.
 Approach II:

Identify sustainable mitigation option (s)

 Problems encountered by users of
different alternative safe water options
Option Water source Major disadvantages

PSF Surface Many ponds used for fish-culture with use of poison to kill
predator fishes. High initial load of bacteria in pond waters.
Acceptability not universal.

RWH Rainwater Rains not uniformly abundant in all areas; There is little or
no rain in dry season. Prohibitive cost for poor households.

Arsenic Arsenic- Effectiveness in removing arsenic questionable,

removal contaminated Unaffordable, Disposal of sludge is environmentally
filters groundwater problematic, Expensive and thus less sustainable on a long-
term basis particularly for poorer households.

Dugwell Sub-surface Susceptible to bacteriological contamination, May dry up

during winter, Presence of manganese, iron, and arsenic in
some wells.
Deep Deep aquifer More expensive than tubewells; Some uncertainties as a
wells (>250m) long-term source for arsenic-safe water.

Piped Deep aquifer Expensive for country-wide adoption, Requires organization

water or treated to run.
surface water
 Functional stautus of
different alternative
67
Bishudhya Filters (30)

Arsenic removal filters 100

safe water options
(10,569) (revised in 2004)
85
RWH (90)

95
PSF (37)

71
Dugwells (231)

%
a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Active Inactive

Bishudhya Filters (210) 10

a) Sonargaon & Jhikargachha 100

upazilas (1999-2004) Arsenic removal filters (10,569)

RWH (147) 80
b) Matlab upazila (2001-2004)
PSF (23) 17

Re-installation of TWs (60) 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
b) Active Inactive
Findings on identifying sustainable
options

 Less than 2% of the total provided options were

found to be in operation;
 Instead, two new peoples’ driven initiative
emerged:
 Preferred use of arsenic safe tubewells;
 Reinstallation of tubewells below 55-100m
depth instead of previous common depth of
20-30m.
 Identification of sustainable alternative safe
water options might be still needed for areas
where none of the above methods would be
applicable.
 Objective III:

Validate a people’s driven initiative for

sustainable source of drinking water
Litholog based on local driller
 Prediction of risk for high
arsenic groundwater

BLACK WHITE OFF- RED

WHITE

RISK
High Neglible?

REDOX
Very reduced Less reduced
 Classification of samples: local
drillers vs. Munsel colour code
400.0
Legend
Max.
320.0
Astot 75 perc

Median
240.0

As ug/l
25 perc

Min.
160.0

80.0

0.0
Black White Off-White Red
Sediment colour

20.0

16.0 Fetot
12.0

8.0

a) Black b) White 4.0

c) Red d) Off-white 0.0

Black White Off-White Red
Sediment colour
Geological cross section of the aquifers
 Findings on validating peoples’ driven
initiative

 There were minor discrepancies between the

driller’s colour classification of the sediments
and the Munsell description;
 The chemical characteristics of the
groundwater correlate well with the colour of
the aquifer sediments;
 Through the use of the technical knowledge of
local drillers, it may be possible to obtain safe
water in many parts of Bangladesh.
 Summary conclusions

 Identified the method of field testing kit for

screening and monitoring of As-contaminated
TWs;
 The safe water options need to be identified
considering the geo-physical and socio-cultural
aspects of the people of the respective villages;
 Detailed scientific investigation needs to be
carried out to validate local drillers initiative (i.e.
re-installation of TWs at targetted depths).
Thanks for your attention
Safe water coverage and the climate change issues
 Papers

 Jakariya M, Vahter M, Rahman M, Wahed MA, Hore SK, Bhattacharya

P, Jacks G, Persson LA.. Screening of arsenic in tubewell water with
field test kits: Evaluation of the method from public health perspective.
Sci Total Environ, 2007, Vol. 379(2-3):167-75;

 Jakariya M, von Bromssen M, Jacks G, Chowdhury AMR, Ahmed KM,

Bhattacharya P. Searching for a sustainable arsenic mitigation strategy
in Bangladesh: experience from two upazilas. Int. J. Environment and
Pollution, 2007, Vol. 31, Nos. 3/4: 415-430;

 von Bromssen M, Jakariya M, Bhattacharya P, Ahmed KM, Hasan MA,

Sracek O, Jonsson L, Lundell L, Jacks G. Targeting low-arsenic
aquifers in Matlab Upazila, Southeastern Bangladesh. Sci Total
Environ, 2007, Vol. 379 (2-3):121-32.
Controls on
Arsenic
Occurrences:
Depth/Sub-
surface
Geology
Deep Tubewell (DTW)
Rain Water Harvester (RWH)
Pond Sand Filter (PSF)
Rural piped water system
Improved Dugwell
 Distribution of Arsenicosis Patients in Block-A

— —
—
—— —
— —
—
— —
—
— — W00
—— — —
—
— — — — —— —
— — —
——— —
D00 — —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
V11 — —
— —
V61 V62
—
— —
V10
— —

V60 — —
—
—
—
V72
—— —
—
—

— —
—

V32
—

—
— ——

V31
— —
—
—
—
—
—
E
— GIS unit , IC D D R,B
—
— —
—
KM

0 .2 .4 .6 .8
—
 Arsenic Concentration at
different cut-off levels

Source: Peter Ravenscroft

Interpretation of kappa results :

Value of κ Strength of agreement

≤0.20 Poor

0.21 - 0.40 Fair

0.41-0.60 Moderate

0.61-0.80 Good

0.81-1.00 Very good

The kappa (κ) test is a test of agreement between two parameters-
e.g. between lab and field kit results in this particular case
Colour scale of Merck sensitive arsenic filed testing kit
Matlab Study Area
Alcan Filter
Arsenic Concentration change over time
(Laboratory analysis)
n=246 (Feb 1999- Sep 2001)
60

46.7 49.6
50

40
%

30

20

10
3.7
0
No change Concentration increased Concentration decreased