Project Phase 2

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
JNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI -590018
A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“WATER PURIFIER WITH AUTOMATIC POURING TAP”
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
MOHAMMAD SAMEER 3LA15ME047
MUSAIB TALHA 3LA15ME051
SHAIK SALEEM 3LA15ME070
SYED RIZWAN ALI 3LA15ME078
Under the Guidance of:
Dr. SANJEEV REDDY K.HUDGIKAR
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LINGARAJ APPA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
GORNALLI, BIDAR -585403
2019-2020
Sharanbasaveshwar Vidya Vardhak Sangha’s
LINGARAJ APPA ENGINEERING COLLEGE

GORNALLI, BIDAR -585403
(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi & Affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgavi)
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Project work, entitled “WATER PURIFIER WITH

AUTOMATIC POURING TAP” carried out by MOHAMMAD SAMEER
3LA15ME047, MUSAIB TALHA 3LA15ME051, SHAIK SALEEM
3LA15ME070 and SYED RIZWAN ALI 3LA15ME078 are bonafide student of
Lingaraj Appa Engineering College, Bidar in partial fulfillment for the award of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING in MECHANICAL ENGINEERING of the
Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi during the year 2019-2020. The project
work has been approved as it satisfies the academic requirements in respect of Project work
prescribed for the said degree.
Dr. SANJEEV REDDY K.H Prof. VIJAYANAND B KAPTE Dr. SANJEEV REDDY K.H
Project Guide Head of the department Principal
External viva
Name of the Examiners Signature with date
1.
2.
DECLARATION
We MOHAMMAD SAMEER 3LA15ME047, MUSAIB TALHA

3LA15ME051, SHAIK SALEEM 3LA15ME070 and SYED RIZWAN ALI
3LA15ME078 are the students of Lingaraj Appa Engineering College, Bidar hereby declare
that the “WATER PURIFIER WITH AUTOMATIC POURING TAP ” embodies
the report of my project carried out during final semester of Bachelor of Engineering in
Mechanical Engineering, under the supervision and guidance of Dr. SANJEEV REDDY K.H,
Lingaraj Appa Engineering College and this work has been submitted for the partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the award of the B.E degree.
we undertake that the matter and body in this report has not been submitted to any
other university for the award of any degree.
Date:
Place: Bidar

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The satisfaction that we feel at the successful completion of our project “WATER
PURIFIER WITH AUTOMATIC POURING TAP” would be incomplete if We did not
mention the people, whose able guidance and encouragement, crowned our efforts with
success. It is our privilege to express our gratitude and respect to all those who inspired and
helped us in the completion of our project work. All the expertise in this project work belongs
to those listed below.
We express our sincere thanks to our President Poojya Dr. Sharanbaswappa Appaji
and Secretary Shri. Basavaraj Deshmukh for providing all the required facilities for the
completion of the project work.
We express our sincere thanks to our beloved Principal Dr.Sanjeev Reddy. K.

Hudgikar, LAEC, Bidar for giving us an opportunity to carry out our project work.
We are greatly indebted to Prof.Vijayanand B Kapte, Head of Department,

Mechanical Engineering, LAEC, Bidar for facilities and support extended to us.
We express our deepest gratitude and thanks to our guide Dr.Sanjeev Reddy. K.
Hudgikar, LAEC, Bidar for giving valuable cooperation and excellent guidance in
completing the entire project work.
We take this opportunity to sincerely acknowledgement all the colleagues, Teaching

staff and Non - Teaching staff of LAEC, Bidar for their kind support and encouragement in
fulfilling this project work.
Finally, We acknowledge the contributions of our family and friends for their patience and
encouragement throughout the project work.

ABSTRACT
This report gives an account of various portable water purifiers available for
deployment. The objective is to compare different purifiers and determine the suitability of
purifiers in different conditions. The water quality standards and the requirements of a
portable purifier are discussed. The purifiers are classified according to the different
purification techniques involved. Subsequently the descriptions of different water purifiers
are given. The purifiers are then compared with respect to various attributes. Finally the
optimum purifier characteristics for a rural household especially in times of a calamity are
brought out.
CONTENT
Chapter 1
1.1. Introduction ………………………………………… 1

1.2. Motivation for study ………………………………. 1
Chapter 2
2.1. History ……………………………………………….. 2
Chapter 3
3.1. Objectives …………………………………………… 5
3.2. Outline of report …………………………………… 5
Chapter 4
4.1. Terminologies and standards …………………….. 6
4.1.1. Drinking water quality and standards …………………….. 6
4.1.1.1. Drinking water ……………………………………………… 6
4.1.1.2. Water quality specification ………………………………… 6
4.2. Bureau of Indian specification ……………………. 7
Chapter 5
5.1. Classification of water purifier ………………….. 8
5.1.1. Thermal or light base treatment …………………………. 8
5.1.2. Physical removal methods ………………………………… 8
5.1.3. Chemical treatment technique ……………………………. 9

5.1.4. Membrane based treatment method …………………….. 9
5.1.5. Novel purifiers ……………………………………………. 9
5.2. Description of purifier alternatives ……………. 10
5.2.1. Thermal or light base treatment techniques …………… 10
5.2.1.1. Boiling …………………………………………………….. 10
5.2.1.2. Thermal pasteurization …………………………………. 12
5.2.1.3. Solar disinfection ………………………………………… 13
5.2.1.4. Solar distillation ………………………………................. 14
5.2.1.5. Ultraviolet treatment ……………………………………. 15
5.2.2. Physical removal methods ……………………. ………. 16
5.2.2.1. Sedimentation or clarification ………………………… 16
5.2.2.2. Biosand filter ……………………………………………. 17
5.2.3. Chemical treatment ……………………………………… 18
5.2.3.1. Chlorination …………………………………………….. 19
5.2.3.2. Combined flocculation and disinfection …………….. 21
5.2.4. Membrane base treatment ……………………………. 22
5.2.4.1. Reverse osmosis purifier ………………………………. 22
Chapter 6
6.1. Sensor for automatic pouring tap ……………. 24
6.2. Data sheet ……………………………………… 25
6.3. Program of sensor …………………………….. 26

Chapter 7
7.1. Review of purifier alternatives ……………….. 28
7.1.1. Description of attribute ……………………………….. 28
7.2. Comparison of alternatives ………………….. 31
Chapter 8
8.1. Analysis of review of alternatives ……….….. 34
Chapter 9
9.1.1. Advantages ……………………………………. 37
9.1.2. Disadvantages ………………………………… 38
9.1.3. Application ……………………………………. 39
Chapter 10
10.1. Concluding remarks …………………………. 40
10.1.1. Conclusion ……………………………………………. 40
10.1.2. Discussion ……………………………………………. 40
10.1.3. Future scope of work ……………………………….. 41
Chapter 11
11.1. Reference …………………………………… 42

Water Purifier With Automatic Pouring Tap
Chapter 1
1.1. INTRODUCTION
748 million people in the world, predominantly belonging to developing
countries, did not have access to safe drinking water in the year 2012. Water access,
cleanliness and sanitation are attributed to causing about 3.7% of the worldwide yearly
health burden. (Ashbolt, 2004). The Millenium Development Goal No. 7 is to ensure
environmental sustainability. The target 7C in this goal is to reduce the percentage of
population not having safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50% within the year
2015 (MDG, 24.10.2014). Most of the problems in water quality are associated with
microbial contamination and partly from chemical pollutants (Ashbolt, 2004). As a result
of reduced water nearly 1.7 million annual deaths (3.1% of all deaths annually) are
caused due to diarrhoea alone and 90% of these deaths happen in the developing
countries. As population continues to rise in Asia and Africa there will be nearly 13% of
the global population which will remain without access to improved source of drinking
water even if the MDG target is met by 2015. Sometimes even improved sources are
microbiologically contaminated resulting in infectious diseases.
1.2. Motivation for the Study

Reviews of recent times have opined that diarrhoeal illnesses could be reduced
by as much as 30-40% by developing household level treatment solutions which makes
such interventions more effective than improving water quality at the source (Sobsey et
al., 2008). Also, centralised water supply systems which have incorporated water
treatment have been established only in densely populated urban areas. The rural
communities which are generally dispersed and the marginalized communities in urban
areas may have to depend on decentralised sources like dug wells, bore holes, hand
pumps and ponds. Especially, in case of emergencies such as floods, often the affected
people have access to water which is not potable. There is a lot of variety of portable
water purifiers already available. However to make informed choices about the
appropriateness of a purifier for a particular situation, a review of the portable purifiers
was found necessary and hence this study.
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LAEC BIDAR Page 1

Chapter 2
2.1. History
The history of water purification or filtering is very much connected to the history
of water itself. As the population grew, water becomes highly contaminated which led to
the emergence of the need for pure, clean drinking water. Although the evolution of best
water purifiers took ages but people did realize the importance of it.
According to Wikipedia, Ancient Sanskrit and Egyptian writings document

practices that were followed to keep water pure for drinking. The Sushruta Samhita (3rd
or 4th century CE) specified various methods, including boiling and heating under the
sun. The text also recommends filtering water through sand and coarse gravel. Images in
Egyptian tombs, dating from the 15th to 13th century BCE depict the use of various water
treatment devices. Hippocrates conducted his own experiments in water purification. His
theory of the four humors of the body led him to believe that the maintenance of good
health required that the four humors be kept in balance. He recommended that feverish
patients immerse themselves in a bath of cool water, which would help realign the
temperature and harmony of the four humors. Hippocrates believed that water had to be
clean and pure and he designed a crude water filter to “purify” the water he used for his
patients. Later known as the “Hippocratic sleeve,” this filter was a cloth bag through
which water could be poured after being boiled.
It is also worthy to note that civilizations thrived only around water and much of
the war that was fought between the tribes of pre historic men were issues related to
water. In modern times, concerns over water quality remain supreme. Over the years,
scientists have discovered more and more contaminants in fresh water sources, and these
same scientists have noted a strong correlation between drinking water contamination and
many significant health problems. Due to the rampant impurity of water and the crucial,
physiological need for clean, fresh drinking water, several treatment alternatives have
emerged throughout the history of water treatment.

The first record of experimentation in water filtration, after the blight of the Dark
Ages, came from Sir Francis Bacon in 1627. Hearing rumours that the salty water of the
ocean could be purified and cleansed for drinking water purposes, he began
experimenting in the desalination of seawater. Using a sand filter method, Bacon believed
that if he dug a hole near the shore through which seawater would pass, sand particles
(presumable heavier than salt particles) would obstruct the passage of salt in the upward
passage of the water; the other side of the hole would then provide pure, salt-free water.
Sadly, his hypothesis did not prove true, and Bacon was left with salty, undrinkable
water. His experiment did mark rejuvenation in water filter experimentation. Later
scientists would follow his lead and continue to experiment with water filtration
technology (Source: historyofwaterfilters.com)
The evolution of water purifiers has been captured in depth by India Water Portal.
Extracts of which are given below.

• Chlorination Of Water | One of the earliest methods of water purification was to

add chlorine in the water. Chlorine releases hydrochloric acid, which reacts with
the microorganisms and kills them. However, due to its negative effect on health
as well as its ineffectiveness to kill certain types of protozoa, this technique lost
popularity paving the way for other purifying techniques.
All water purifiers have a water filter. The most popular ones are discussed below:
• Active Carbon filter | This kind of filter is used to purify soluble gasses such as
chlorine, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, ammonia and organic material like dead
algae, leaves or any other dead thing washed into a water body. The porous nature
of the carbon (charcoal) helps to absorb chlorine and pollutants such as pesticides.
Generally, household carbon filters come with a lining of activated silver that kills
bacteria.
• Bio Sand Filter | It is a concrete or plastic box that is filled with layers of sand
and gravel, which removes pathogens (micro-organisms in water that make us
sick) and suspended solids from contaminated water. Water is poured into the top
of the filter and collected in a safe storage container. The organisms which cause
infectious.
• Ultra Violet (UV) Filters | UV light (minimum level radiation) is passed on the
water to kill bacteria and other microbes by attacking the DNA in cells. These
filters remove pesticides by up to 99%. This filter is effective in removing all
types of pathogens but it is not effective for removing suspended particles,
chemicals, taste, smell or colour. It can purify approximately 2000 litres/day.
• Reverse Osmosis Filters | Reverse Osmosis (RO) system offers a multi-stage
filtration of water by combining active carbon and also particle filtration. Here,
the tap water is made to pass through a membrane (a polymer film) that has very
small-sized pores and this weed out minerals and micro-organisms in water. The
impurities collected are then flushed out through an outlet pipe. An RO water
purifier improves the taste of water. RO filters are recommended for places where
the problem with the water is its high content of dissolved minerals.

Chapter 3
3.1. Objectives
• The objectives of the study in point-wise form are as follows.

• To find out issues concerning drinking water
• To determine the standards stipulated for drinking water quality.
• To survey different water purifiers and purification techniques which are already
available.
• To describe the portable purifiers by means of the available literature.
• To enlist the desirable qualities of water treatment devices.
• To compare the purifiers based on multiple parameters like cost, microbial
removal efficacy, ease of use, dependence on utilities, etc.
• To evolve suitable portable water purifiers appropriate for certain situations based
on efficiency, inexpensiveness, practicality, etc.
3.2. Outline of the report
This study involved reviewing the literature regarding a variety of portable water
purification techniques like boiling, solar water disinfection, sedimentation and ceramic
filters coagulation, adsorption (activated carbon), chlorination, UV irradiation, ultra
filtration, reverse osmosis and other combined methods that have been predominantly
used at the household level. The information on performance of these purifiers with
respect to parameters like cost, availability, ease of use, dependence on utilities, and
microbial efficacy was also mostly obtainable in the literature.
The details about the quality standards prescribed by different agencies and certain
definitions and criteria of the study are covered in Chapter 2. The classification,
descriptions and reviews of the study follow in Chapter 3. The fourth chapter discusses
the conclusions and also the possibility of future span of work.

Chapter 4
4.1. TERMINOLOGIES AND STANDARDS
4.1.1. Drinking Water Quality Standards
4.1.1.1. Drinking water
Macmillan Dictionary says that drinking water is “water that is safe to drink.”
The definition of safe drinking water according to the Joint Management Programme
(JMP) of WHO and UNICEF is “water used for domestic purposes, drinking, cooking
and personal hygiene. Safe drinking water is water with microbial, chemical and physical
characteristics that meet WHO guidelines or national standards on drinking water
quality.” Also regarding access of drinking water the JMP states “Access to drinking
water means that the source is less than 1 kilometre away from its place of use and that it
is possible to reliably obtain at least 20 litres per member of a household per day”; further
“Access to safe drinking water is the proportion of people using improved drinking water
sources: household connection; public standpipe; borehole; protected dug well; protected
spring; rainwater.” It is significant to note that Millennium Development Goal 7 which is
to ensure environmental sustainability has a Target 7c which asks nations to: "Halve, by
2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking-water and
basic sanitation." (MDG, 24.10.2014).
4.1.1.2 Water Quality specifications
Potable water quality is generally specified under three types namely, Physical,
Chemical and Biological parameters. Physical and chemical specifications cover criteria
like turbidity, presence of heavy metals and Total Suspended Solids. The biological
parameters are basically a measure of microbial contamination from bacteria, protozoa
and viruses. Four different water quality standards are mentioned in the report. They are
BIS, WHO, CPHEEO and CPCB specifications.

4.2. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Specifications
BIS: 10500-1991 specifications are categorised into Essential Characteristics,

Desirable Characteristics and Radioactive Materials (Water Quality Standards,
28.10.2014).
1. Essential Characteristics: Colour, Odour, Taste, Turbidity, pH, hardness, Iron,

Chlorides and Residual free Chlorine.
2. Desirable Characteristics: Dissolved solids, Magnesium, Copper, Manganese,
Sulphate, Nitrate, Fluoride, Phenolic Compounds, Mercury, Cadmium, Selenium,
Arsenic, Cyanide, Lead, Zinc, Anionic detergents, Chromium, Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Mineral oil and Pesticides.
3. Radioactive Materials: Alpha emitters, Beta emitters, Alkalinity, Aluminium and
Boron.

Chapter 5
5.1. Classification of Water Purifiers
Traditionally there has been no specific method of classifying various

purification techniques. Each of the water treatment methods were separately described
as in Gadgil (1998). However over the years some compartmentalization can be found.
Some of the broad types as classified in Sobsey (2002) are Thermal and Ultraviolet forms
of treatment, Physical filtration and sedimentation and Chemical Purification methods. Of
late a new category of treatment options involving membranes have been formed (Loo et
al., 2012). So in this study a separate category for membrane based purification methods
has been created. Apart from this a separate section for novel purifiers which are in their
early stages of deployment and which use innovative or integrated methods of
purification. So with this scheme in place, the classification is as follows.
5.1.1. Thermal or light based treatment techniques
• Boiling
• Thermal pasteurization
• Solar Disinfection (SODIS)
• Solar distillation
• Ultraviolet (UV) treatment
5.1.2. Physical Removal Methods
• Sedimentation or Clarification
• Paper, Fabric and Fiber Filters
• Biosand filter

5.1.3. Chemical treatment techniques
• Chlorination
• Combined flocculation and disinfection
• Adsorption
5.1.4. Membrane based treatment methods
• Microfiltration (MF)
• Ultrafiltration (UF) and Nanofiltration (NF)
• Reverse Osmosis (RO)
• Forward Osmosis (FO)
5.1.5. Novel Purifiers
• Plant Xylem Filtration

• Integrated Purification
• Biopolymer reinforced nanocomposites
• Other novel filters

Figure 5.1 Hierarchical chart depicting the classification scheme of the study
Portable Water
Purifiers
Chemical
treatment
Thermal or light Physical Removal techniques
based Methods Membrane based Novel Purifiers
Sedimentation or Plant Xylem

Boiling Clarification Chlorination Microfiltration (MF) Filtration
Combined Ultrafiltration (UF)

flocculation and and Nanofiltration
Thermal Paper, Fabric and disinfection (NF) Integrated
pasteurization Fiber Filters Purification
Biopolymer
reinforced
Solar Disinfection Reverse osmosis nanocomposites
(SODIS) Biosand filter Adsorption (RO)
Forward Osmosis
Solar distillation (FO) Other filters
Ultraviolet (UV)
treatment
5.2. Description of Purifier Alternatives
5.2.1 Thermal or light based treatment techniques
5.2.1.1. Boiling
Boiling is perhaps the earliest mode of household water purification. (Sobsey,

2002). The microbial contaminants are neutralized even before the water reaches 100oC
at mean sea level. However it is recommended to continue boiling for one minute for
ensuring complete boiling. It is advisable to store boiled water in the vessel in which it
was boiled and consume it within 24 hours of boiling.

There have not been many epidemiological studies which have found the health
implications because of boiling water. Although boiling is widespread in Asia, it has not
been easily adopted in other regions except during crises. (Lantagne and Clasen, 2009).
Even those waterborne pathogens which might be unaffected by free chlorine and
microfiltration like protozoan cysts and viruses can be neutralized by boiling (Sobsey,
2002). Boiling has also been shown being effective against faecal coliforms and
thermotolerant coliforms (Loo et al., 2012). Boiling has a drawback of not providing
residual protection which implies storage of boiled water in clean containers with
protective opening becomes crucial. Chemicals and radionuclides cannot be removed by
boiling water only biological contamination can be targeted. Boiling becomes feasible
only if fuel is easily available at reasonable prices. As per anecdotal evidences nearly half
of China’s people depend on boiling water using biomass-fuelled stoves.
Despite relying on expensive fuel (when bought) and causing huge air pollution, it is
the only available water treatment technique to the non-affluent group of people in
developing nations (Gadgil, 1998). Heating water up to boiling point is not essential for
microbial disinfection, instead holding water at 70oC for about 6 minutes can be
sufficient. But due to the inaccessible thermometry for many users boiling at 100oC (at
mean sea level) for a minute is the safest option. However as the altitude rises by every
100 m, World Health Organization prescribes increasing the boiling time by one minute
(Gadgil, 1998).
Nearly 35 litres (or kg) of water would be required for a family of five. If boiling is
done with fuel wood then it would require 12 kg of fuel wood. This is due to the low
efficiency of fuel wood cookstove at 12% which necessitates that one-third mass of fuel
wood for unit mass of water boiled. It is mostly the women in developing countries who
take the responsibility of bringing fuelwood for daily use which creates a huge workload
for them with other household chores. This puts huge pressure on natural vegetation to
cater to increasing demand for firewood. Also, 440 g of carbon in the form of CO2 and
650 g of carbon equivalent in terms of non-CO2 greenhouse gases is released for every
kg of firewood burnt in a biomass coookstove. (Gadgil, 1998).

5.2.1.2. Thermal Pasteurization
Thermal pasteurization is a similar method like boiling but in this method the
water temperature does not generally exceed 75oC. It is suitable for rural households
using the traditional earthen cookstove referred to as Chulha or Chulli. Water flows
through the aluminium coiled tube built around the Chulli (Figure 3.1). Thermotolerant
coliforms were eliminated and E.coli was removed to a n extent of more than 5 LRV.
(Islam and Johnston, 2006; Gupta et al., 2008) Chulli purifier was not widely accepted in
Bangladesh due to inconvenience and some mechanical issues. (Gupta et al., 2008; Loo et
al., 2012).
Figure 3.2 Chulli Purifier in the form of a coiled tube. Source: Islam and Johnston, 2006.
An analogous version is the water disinfection stove (WADIS) which uses a

galvanized iron pipe wound around the pot holes of the Lorena cookstove similar to the
Chulha (Christen et al., 2009). Water can be disinfected from faecal coliforms (FC) and
viruses with solar water heaters through thermally deactivation. (Kang et al., 2006).

Nearly 4 LRV of FC and viruses were remove after solar irradiation for about 2 hours on
sunny days while after 4 hours on cloudy days (Loo et al, 2012).
5.2.1.3. Solar Disinfection (SODIS)
Solar water disinfection (SODIS) is a technique where water is filled in transparent

bottles made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and kept under solar radiation for
disinfection (Figure 3.2). The heat energy and the ultraviolet radiations help in mitigating
microbial contamination. (Sobsey et al., 2008). There is a pre-requisite for SODIS that
filtration or sedimentation of turbid water (more than 30 NTU) before solar radiation
treatment. Nephalometric turbidity unit (NTU) is a measure of turbidity which is
determined by measuring the scattering of light. All filters have design limits on the
amount of Total suspended Solids (in mg/L) and turbidity they can handle beyond which
the inlet water is to be pre-treated with coagulating agents.
The filtered water can then be placed in 1 or 2 L transparent bottles which can then
be kept in sinlight for six or more hours after vigorous shaking for aeration. Under non-
availability of other purification techniques especially during crises, SODIS can turn out
to be a simple alternative. Rather than other transparent plastics, PET bottles are favoured
due to their non-leaching properties (Sobsey, 2002)/ Training drives on SODIS can be
promoted. SODIS is suitable for little volumes of low turbid (< 30 NTU) water of less
than 10 L. There is also quite a deal of work involved in SODIS and in terms of
practicality can cater only to drinking water. (Peter-Varbanets et al., 2009). SODIS is
generally applicable for regions which receive solar radiation of high intensity. However
solar collectors, additives like vinegar and lemon juice can be used to boost up efficiency
in areas of low solar radiation intensity (Loo et al., 2010). One of the major advantages is
that there is no recurring maintenance cost involved although PET bottles are required.
Limitations are that treatment time is long with little yield and inability to treat water
with high turbidity. There is documented evidence of microbial disinfection. SODIS is
partly acceptable despite simple usage due to limited yield. Storage is expected to be safe
if water is retained in PET bottles. Lack of visible improvement in water quality.

The method is appropriate when the users are trained about proper application of SODIS
(Lantagne and Clasen 2009).
5.2.1.4. Solar distillation
Just like the hydrologic cycle of water, solar distillation uses the principle of
evaporation and condensation. One of the simple mode of solar distillation is using solar
stills. (Flendrig et al., 2009). It can remove non-volatile contaminants and operates under
intense solar radiation.The technique is still not widespread due to the little yield, high
investment cost and people’s commitment to use such systems. Solar still is composed of
a container of which stores dirty water while a transparent cover acts as an agent that aids
condensation (Flendrig et al., 2009). (Figure 3.3). The operational cost though is quite
low at US$ 0.0024-0.02 per litre of water (Loo et al., 2012). But solar stills have not been
quite successful in terms of removing volatile impurities like pesticides. Solar stills have
advantages of desalination capability, simple construction and maintenance. However
large area would be required due to poor thermal efficiency and there might be
disturbances in operation due to weather changes. There have been various prototypes
which have discharge rates ranging from 0.5 L/d to 3 L/d (Flendrig et al., 2009; Loo et
al, 2012). This technique still demands further detailed probing to make accessible solar
distillation at low cost to the user.
Figure 3.4 Conceptual sketch of a solar distillation unit. Source: Loo et al., 2012

5.2.1.5 Ultraviolet (UV) treatment
Ultra Violet irradiation in the germicidal wavelength range even at low dosage limits
has the capacity to deactivate Crypto Giardia lamblia cysts and Cryptosporidium parvum
oocysts by more than 3 LRV. (Berg, 2010). UV systems require power in the form of
mechanical or electrical means which increases the dependence on civic utilities (Berg,
2010). Ultra Violet systems fail to perform effectively under high turbidity and a prefilter
before UV treatment helps in clearing turbidity . UV purifiers require periodic cleaning
and replacement which increases the operational cost. (Gadgil, 1998). UV purifiers also
do not provide any residual protection.
Aquaguard Compact: Aquaguard Compact is a common water purifier found in

households which is priced at Rs. 9000 (Figure 3.4). It incorporates a clarifier, activated
carbon block, unspecified mineral guard and an UV treater. Municipal feed water upto 15
NTU turbidity and 200 mg/L TDS can be purified at a rate of 60 L/hour. It depends on
electricity and on-line input water pressure in the range 0.4 to 2.0 kg/cm2. The UV lamp
has a lifetime of 5000 burning hours and consumes 8 watts of power for operation
(Aquaguard, 28.10.2014).
Figure 3.5 Aquaguard Compact UV purifier. Source: Aquaguard,

28.10.2014.

5.2.2. Physical Removal Methods
5.2.2.1. Sedimentation or Clarification
Clarifiers help in separating suspended solid particles from liquids through the
process of sedimentation. Traditionally, clarification has been undertaken using alum,
iron, lime, Strychnos potatorum (clearing nut or Nirmali tree) and Moringa oleifera
(drumstick) seeds (Figure 3.5), Guar gum and Jatropha curcas (Ndabigengesere and
Narasiah, 1998; Sobsey 2002) for reducing turbidity and to remove microbes.
Figure 3.6 Moringa oleifera tree and dried seeds. Source: Moringa Tree,
30.10.2014 and Moringa Seeds, 30.10.2014 respectively.
Clearing nut (Strychnos potatorum) (Figure 3.6) is reported to have reduced

microbial contamination by 50% and 95% for plate count bacteria and turbidity
respectively. (Sobsey 2002).
Aluminium salts (alum) and Iron salts cause coagulation of colloidal particles and
microbes. Under careful monitoring, aluminium and iron salts can remove 90%-99% of
microbial contamination through flocculation and sedimentation. A reduction in cholera
transmission was also reported due to the usage of potash alum (Khan et al., 1984).

5.2.2.2. Biosand filter
A Biosand filter (BSF) is a modified version of the of the erstwhile slow sand filter
suitable for a household. BSF is made of containers (approximately 0.3m L * 0.3m B *
0.9m H) packed with sand where a bioactive layer is allowed to form a few centimetres
below the top surface of sand (Figure 3.7). The biologically active layer referred to as
smutzdecke consists of food chains of small micro-organisms like bacteria and protozoa
which restricts the passage of disease causing microbes (Sobsey, 2002). When the filter
gets choked, the top layer can be removed, and after a few days as the bioactive layer
remerges, the filter can be used once again. The infiltration rate of water through the filter
is around 0.1 to 0.2 m/hour which gives a discharge of around 20 L/hour. BSF requires
infrequent maintenance and occupies some definite space. As per laboratory tests, BSF is
competent in removing more than 95% of turbidity, more than 3 log Removal Value
(LRV) of protozoa, about 2 LRV of bacteria. However, it has poor efficiency in virus
removal i.e., around 1 LRV of viruses. (Peter- Varbanets et al, 2009). Iron oxide coated
sand used in Biosand filter fared better in terms of removal of bacteria of more than 3
LRV (Ahammed and Davra, 2011). A biosand filter takes a long time before it can be
used a filter. This is due to filter ripening time involved in formation of the bio-active
layer. Hence, it is rather difficult to deploy and operate quickly during acute emergencies.
However once constructed with an one-time investment, it is quite easy to use despite
low rate of operation. Local materials like sand are sufficient and no chemicals are used
required. There are four mechanisms through which the microbial content is reduced by
the bio-active layer viz. The usage of BSF is extremely simple wherein users pour water
into the filter and get filtered water at the outlet. A diffuser plate is placed on the top of
sand layer to avoid disruption of schmutzdecke layer. Also shallow water of depth 5 – 6
cm is maintained above the sand to encourage growth of the biolayer (Lantagne and
Clasen, 2009).
Proper storage of filtered water would become essential as there is no residual

protection offered unlike chlorine treatment. Also the bio-active layer may not function
effectively at low temperatures, low nutrient content and low dissolved oxygen in
incoming water. Regular maintenance in the form of scraping 5 to 10 cm from top of

sand bed. This sand layer is cleaned and replaced. The replaced sand again takes time for
filter ripening hence multiple units of filter are suggested (Sobsey, 2002)
Figure 3.8 Biosand Filter. Source: Biosand, 31.10.2014.

5.2.3. Chemical treatment techniques
5.2.3.1. Chlorination
Chlorination is a simple and most affordable technique already in widespread usage.

The chlorine demand of water is the amount of chlorine that reacts with metals and
organic matter in water. The chlorine which remains after satisfying chlorine demand is
total chlorine. Further the total chlorine comprises of combined and free chlorine. While
the combined chlorine gets consumed due to reaction with nitrates, it is only the free
chlorine which is available for microbial disinfection. So the presence of residual
chlorine ensures that the water is almost free from pathogens. The aspect residual
protection offers some buffer against the contaminants that might be present in storage
vessels. However there may not be any visible improvement the quality of water.
The problem of taste and odour is a major issue with free chlorine deployment. The
purification is affected due to the presence of high pH, high turbidity and low
temperature. Therefore, other pre treatment techniques are recommended before using
chlorination. Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts and mycobacteria species
Cryptosporidium are unaffected by chlorination (Sobsey, 2002). Chlorination as a method
is easily scalable from a few litres to thousands of litres. Free chlorine in the form of
sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution is the common method of purification (Figure
3.8). However sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaC3N3O3Cl2 or NaDCC) in the form of
tablets has been found to be having several advantages over NaOCl like easy packaging,
safety, stability for a longer period, lower investment and lesser weight. (Berg, 2010).
Chlorine has the advantage of allowing quick deployment during calamities. A

major limitation of free chlorine is the generation of Disinfection by-products (DBPs).
Chlorination is competent in removing more nearly 3 LRV of enteric bacteria at doses of
2 mg/L and contact times of about half an hour at 20oC, 1 NTU and pH of 7 (Gadgil,
1998).

The various methods of point of use chlorination are liquid NaOCl, solid NaDCC,
solid calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) or bleaching powder. Bleaching powder is not
preferred due to the additives like abrasives, detergents and fragrances which might be
present. If the inlet water has less than 0.25 mg/L of total organic carbon content, then, a
residual free chlorine of 0.25 mg/L is considered sufficient for a temperature of 20oC
incoming water.
The necessity to ensure a proper and timely supply chain right from the source up to
target users is one of the key limitations of chlorine dispensation. The timely supply is
also of high relevance due to the half life of the order of weeks or months for liquid and
powder bleach.
Although chlorine can be widely dispensed during emergencies, there is no little or no

training on the correct dosage depending on different inlet water conditions and type of
chlorine tablets. There is also little research or evaluation of free chlorine projects during
such emergencies (Loo et al., 2012).
Figure 3.9 A plastic bottle containing sodium hypochlorite solution. Photo: Darpan
Das

5.2.3.2. Combined flocculation and disinfection
Combined methods such as coagulant/flocculant as well as chemical disinfectant

powders are tablets are now available at relatively low prices of US$ 0.01/L. (Peter-
Varbanets et al., 2009). The socio-cultural acceptance is still low due to problems in taste
and odour as is the case with free chlorine. There is also a considerable time involved for
sedimentation and disinfection. There are several commercial products available like the
PuR sachet (Figure 3.9), WaterMaker in granular form (Sobsey et al., 2008). These
products combine calcium hypochlorite (or bleach) with coagulating agents like sodium
carbonate, bentonite, ferric sulphate, poly(acrylamide), chitosan and oxidisers like
potassium permanganate. A PuR sachet of 4g is dissolved in10 L of turbid water, stirred
for 5 minutes and after sedimentation, the water is filtered across a clean cotton cloth and
left undisturbed for 20 minutes for disinfectant to deactivate the pathogens (CDC,
28.10.2014).
The effectiveness of such combined methods is found to be 7-9 LRV for bacteria,
3-5 LRV for protozoa and 2-6 LRV for viruses (Sobsey et al., 2008). One of the
additional advantages of PuR sachets is that it can remove arsenic up to 1.2 mg/L is
acceptable for drinking. (Souter et al., 2003). PuR is easily deployable during disasters
and also has a long shelf life. The ability to treat turbid water gives it the edge over free
chlorine. However it is also dependent over supply chain, odour and taste problems like
chlorination. It has the additional limitation of multiple treatment steps (Loo et al., 2012).
Figure 3.10 A combined flocculant-disinfection (PUR) sachet. Source:

PUR, 31.10.2014.

5.2.3.3. Ultraviolet (UV) treatment
Ultra Violet irradiation in the germicidal wavelength range even at low dosage
limits has the capacity to deactivate Crypto Giardia lamblia cysts and Cryptosporidium
parvum oocysts by more than 3 LRV. (Berg, 2010). UV systems require power in the
form of mechanical or electrical means which increases the dependence on civic utilities
(Berg, 2010). Ultra Violet systems fail to perform effectively under high turbidity and a
prefilter before UV treatment helps in clearing turbidity . UV purifiers require periodic
cleaning and replacement which increases the operational cost. (Gadgil, 1998). UV
purifiers also do not provide any residual protection.
Reverse osmosis (RO) treatment
RO filters remove all kinds of waterborne impurities even up to radionuclides and

offers one of the safest water treatments (Figure 3.21) (Loo et al., 2012). The major
drawback of RO systems is their huge energy demand and hence it is recommended only
when water quality is very doubtful and fresh water source is unavailable. Huge water
pressure needs to be developed because there is higher resistance due to the counteracting
osmotic pressure across the membrane (Loo et al., 2012).
Figure 3.22 Reverse Osmosis Purifier. Source: Kent RO, 31.10.2014.

Generally, there are pre-treatment and post treatment steps other than the main
reverse osmosis filtration in a spirally wound membrane unit (Peter-Varbanets et al.,
2009).
The prefiltration steps are sedimentation, microfiltration and activated carbon

treatment. Postfiltration phases also comprise of activated carbon filters. Taps fitted with
RO systems can work with the inlet water pressure without requiring electricity. There is
a need for frequent replacement of pre and post filtration stages every year and RO
membrane nearly every 2.5 years. RO filters are also expensive and their investment cost
varies from US$ 200 to US$ 700 depending on the discharge rate while their operational
cost is around US$ 85-135 annually (Peter-Varbanets et al., 2009).
Solar radiation can be used through photovoltaic cells to run reverse osmosis
purifiers. This kind of Reverse Osmosis Solar Installation (ROSI) was tried out in
northern Australia. (Loo et al., 2012). ROSI system is capable of treating highly saline
and turbid feed waters. Trained workforce is required to maintain this complex system.
Mobile RO water treatment systems mounted on large trucks are available from
General Electric for emergencies and on short term contracts. These systems are
electrically powered or by means of gasoline are highly expensive for general use (Peter-
Varbanets et al., 2009).

Chapter 6
6.1. Sensor for automatic pouring tap
Tiny and lightweight with high output power. Servo can rotate approximately 180
degrees (90 in each direction), and works just like the standard kinds but smaller. You
can use any servo code, hardware or library to control these servos. Good for beginners
who want to make stuff move without building a motor controller with feedback & gear
box, especially since it will fit in small places. It comes with a 3 horns (arms) and
hardware.

6.2. Data sheet
Position "0" (1.5 ms pulse) is middle, "90" (~2ms pulse) is middle,
is all the way to the right, "-90" (~1ms pulse) is all the way to the left.

6.3. Program of sensor

#include <Servo.h> //IMPOTENT POINT ADD servo.h LIBRARYY
#define trigPin 3
#define echoPin 2
Servo servo;
int sound = 250;
void setup() {
Serial.begin (9600);
pinMode(trigPin, OUTPUT);
pinMode(echoPin, INPUT);
servo.attach(4); // conectsevro pin 6
void loop() {
long duration, distance;
digitalWrite(trigPin, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(2);
digitalWrite(trigPin, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(10);
digitalWrite(trigPin, LOW);
duration = pulseIn(echoPin, HIGH);
distance = (duration/2) / 29.1;

if (distance < 10)
Serial.println("the distance is less than 5");
servo.write(90);
else {
servo.write(0);
if (distance > 40 || distance <= 0){
Serial.println("The distance is more than 60");
else {
Serial.print(distance);
Serial.println(" cm");
delay(500);

Chapter 7
7.1. Review of Purifier Alternatives
7.1.1. Description of Attributes
The attributes which were utilised to evaluate the purifiers from a low income
rural/urban and emergency perspective were as follows.
• Cost Rs/L (Lifetime and investment adjusted)

This single criteria takes into account the investment cost of the purifier, the
lifetime or durability of the purifier, operational/ replacement/ maintenance of various
components of the purifier and the lifetime/ durability of exhaustible components of the
purifier. This parameter is calculated as follows. The ratio of investment cost of the
purifier to the lifetime of the purifier gives the cost incurred per unit time. Similar ratio is
found for various exhaustible components of the purifier (if any). Both the ratios in
consistent units are summed up and the resultant cost is converted to a ratio of cost per
litre using the assumption that a family of four with a daily consumption of 2
L/day/person. The cost is converted to Indian National Rupees (INR) from US$ assuming a
conversion rate of 1 US$ = INR Rs.60. This single criteria eliminates the use of multiple criteria
that can be quite confusing. Cost is a major factor for water purification especially for majority of
poor in developing counties.
• Purification Performance
Performance attribute in this review predominantly refers to the effectiveness in
microbial disinfection. A very good measure of microbial removal efficiency is the Log
Removal Value (LRV). LRV is generally calculated against three categories of microbes:
bacteria, protozoa and viruses. An LRV value of 1 indicates 90% reduction in
microbiological contamination. Further LRV of 2 and 3 imply microbial disinfection of
99% and 99.9% respectively. Thus higher the LRV better is the performance of the
purifier. LRV for all combinations purifiers and microbes was unavailable.

• Energy Requirement or dependence on utilities

Dependence on energy utilities becomes a crucial aspect for rural areas and
disaster affected places. Power may be required in the form of electricity, fuel
wood/LPG, mechanical pumping pressure, manually applied hand pressure or mouth
suction, gravity based, etc. Dependence on electricity and mechanical pumping pressure
are not recommended for emergencies and remote villages.
• Sustainability
In terms of sustainability excessive dependence on utilities like firewood, non-
renewable forms of energy and expensive advanced technologies for a small scale are not
advisable. A sign of ‘‘+’’ indicates that the purifier may be made locally from locally
available materials, with limited application of chemicals and low dependence on non-
renewable energy. ‘‘-’’ value implies that there is a daily requirement of non-renewable
sources of power or chemicals. If the purifier might cause widespread environmental
harm like deforestation for fuel requirements and uses expensive advanced technologies
for meeting small temporary needs then a value of ‘‘- -’’ is assigned (Peter-Verbanets et
al., 2009).
• Maintenance
Most of the purifiers require at least one form of maintenance. The most common
form of maintenance is cleaning of water holding containers. Backflushing of membrane
filters, removing depositions on candle filters, scraping off the top layer of sand in
Biosand filters and replacement of activated carbon cartridges and membrane modules
are some specific forms of maintenance.
• Pre/Post treatment
Some methods of purification like UV, chlorination, etc require pre treatment to
reduce turbidity while methods like RO require pre-treatment to avoid clogging of very
fine membranes.

• Rate of Production
Rate of production indicates the quantity of water filtered in unit time. All the
discharge rates of purifiers were expressed in the unit of L/hour. Purifiers which are
capable of producing higher flow rates would be able to support needs of a bigger
population than a purifier which is suitable only for a single individual.
• Ease of Use
Ease of use plays a major role in the continued usage of a purifier. Generally due
to inconvenience and handling problems, a purification method might be abandoned. If
usage is only filling of feed water and collection of purified water then a score of ‘‘++’’
is given. A score of ‘‘++’’ is also assigned when the purifier is portable and can be
handled easily. If additional effort is required like hand pumping or pedalling other than
just filling and collecting water then a ‘‘+’’ mark is allocated (Peter-Varbanets et al.,
2009).
• Social Acceptability
The crucial aspect which decides the future of the purifier is the social
acceptability. A purifier can sustain only if it is socio-culturally acceptable to the users.
Hence a ‘‘++’’ sign is allotted if the purification method is traditionally practised like
boiling. If on deployment the purifier is easily accepted then a ‘‘+’’mark is assigned. On
the other hand if the product is not widely accepted then a score of ‘‘+/-’’ is allocated
(Peter-Varbanets et al., 2009).
• Portability
Portability, the interest of this study is the final attribute for comparison. A score
of “++” is allotted is the purifier is handy to be deployed especially during emergencies.
A value of “+” is assigned if the purifier itself is large or sophisticated which makes the
deployment tough.

7.2. Comparison of Alternatives
Some of the following purifiers or treatment techniques were reviewed for which
sufficient data for the above attributes was available. They are:
i. Boiling
ii. Portable solar stills
iii. SODIS Solar disinfection
iv. Activated Carbon and UV filtration/ Aquaguard Compact
v. Biosand Filter (95 cm H* 36 cm W)
vi. Chlorination
vii. Combined coagulation-disinfection sachet (PuR)
viii. Tata Swach
ix. Pureit
x. Household Ceramic Filters/ Microfiltration
xi. Terafil filter
xii. Lifestraw UF
xiii. Lifesaver bottle UF
xiv. Bicycle powered UF
xv. Small-scale Reverse Osmosis system

Table 7.1 Comparison of Alternatives with respect to multiple attributes. Source:

References quoted in the respective description of purifiers. LRV: Log Removal
Value. NR: Not Reported.
Name Cost Purification Purification Energy Maintenance Pre/Post Rate of

(Rs/L Performanc Performanc Requiremen treatmen Productio
) e Against e Against t or t n L/hour
Bacteria Virus dependence
(LRV) (LRV) on utilities
Boiling 0.68 NR NR Fuel Cleaning of Nil/Nil Flexible
vessels used for
boiling
Portable 3.27 >3 NR Solar Cleaning of NR/NR 0.03

solar stills radiation sludge layer in
solar stills
SODIS Solar 0.17 3-5.5 2-4 5 Solar Washing of PET May require Flexible
disinfection radiation bottles, regular, filtration to
time consuming remove
turbidity upto
30 NTU/ Nil
Activated 0.61 6 4 mechanicall Occasiona NR/UV 162
Carbon & y powered or l
UV electricity replaceme
Aquaguard nt
Compact
Biosand 0.04 0.3-4; 0-1.3 Gravity Resuspension of NR/NR 30-40
Filter (95 cm based top 5-10 cm of
H* 36 cm W) sand Depends on
fuel availability;
required once in a
few months
Chlorination 0.05 1-2.8 NR Nil Washinng of May require Flexible
treatment/stora filtration/
ge container Nil

Combined 0.21 4-8 1-4 Nil Cleaning of ladle and Nil/ Cloth Flexible
coagulation- container, regular, filtration
disinfection time consuming
sachet (PuR)
Tata Swach 0.26 NR NR Gravity Occasional cleaning NR/NR 3.5
and replacement
HUL Pureit 0.39 NR NR Gravity Occasional cleaning NR/NR NR
and replacement
Household 0.04 2 -4 1-2.3 Gravity Scrubbing, cleaning, NR/NR 2.4-18
Ceramic based or tap replacement
Filters/ MF pressure
Terafil filter 0.03 2-3 NR Gravity Occasional cleaning surface water >1
of containers and would require a
candle mild chlorination
of 0.01g/L
Lifestraw UF 0.7 6-7 2-4.7 Gravity feed Regular cleaning and NR/NR 8.6-12
or mouth backwashing
suction
Lifesaver 2.55 >7 >5 Mechanical Occasional NR/ AC 150 at 0.25
bottle UF pumping backflushing and (optional) bar
cleaning
Bicycle 2.1 <1 NR Pedal Backflushing by NR/NR 800
powered UF bacteria/mL powered permeate and/or CIP
Small-scale 1.43 NR NR Tap pressure Required yearly; 3 (Cartridge ~240 (6

Reverse or electricity step filtration prefilter, GAC bar); 25-
Osmosis filter and 0.005 37%
system mm cartridge)/ recovery
UV and AC
treatment
FO reusable 240 6 3 Osmotic Recharge syrup NR/NR 0.067
filter pouch pressure required (single
charge
)
Name Cost Purification Purification Energy Maintenance Pre/Post Rate of
(Rs/L Performanc Performanc Requiremen treatment Productio
) e Against e Against t or n L/hour
Bacteria Virus dependence
(LRV) (LRV) on utilities

Chapter 8
8.1. Analysis of Review of Alternatives
• Cost
It was found that in terms of investment and lifetime adjusted cost biosand,
chloriation ceramic filter and Terafil filters were most suitable. If firewood for burning is
available for free then boiling is also suitable alternative. However there will still be the
drudgery of fetching fuel wood for boiling. Forward Osmosis has unimaginably high cost
and is not an appropriate option for developing countries. UF and RO systems are also
quite expensive and will remain a burden until the costs reduce significantly.
• Purification Performance
Except boiling, UV, UF, RO and FO all other systems are not capable of
“foolproof” purification. That is the log removal values of other filters are in the range of
2 to 3 for treating bacteria while it is more than 5 LRV for UF and RO systems. This
brings in the problem of optimising the cost and performance and shows that they are
almost mutually exclusive. This also probably explains the huge dependency of rural
public on boiling as a purification method.
• Energy Dependence
Boiling consumes energy in the form of LPG or firewood while UV and RO
depend on electricity. UF systems require some form of mechanical action which may be
pedal powered or hand pumped. Other forms rely on gravity, solar irradiation and
osmotic pressure for water treatment. Hence boiling, UV and RO systems are energy
intensive while UF systems can be operated with human effort.
• Sustainability
In terms of sustainability considering the aspect of chemicals, energy, dependency on
sophisticated replacements/ non-local resources, various patterns could be seen. SODIS,
solar distillation, BSF, Household ceramic and Terafil filter can be considered sustainable
taking into account the various sustainability parameters mentioned above. UV,
chlorination, combined flocculation-disinfection,Tata Swach, Pureit and bicycle operated

UF have been categorised as unsustainable. While chlorination and combined

flocculation-disinfection depend on chemical usage, UV, Tata Swach, Pureit and bicycle
operated UF depend on exhaustible purifier components which cannot be locally sourced
because of the use of sophisticated technology. Boiling, Lifestraw UF, Lifesaver UF and
RO have been classified as highly unsustainable. The reason is attributed to the fact that
boiling being widespread can cause extensive deforestation, Lifestraw UF and Lifesaver
UF operate for short lifespan and require repeated replacements. RO is highly energy
intensive and there is high water rejection rate hence is has been classified under highly
unsustainable category.
• Maintenance
All purifiers require cleaning and maintenance of some form or the other.
Chlorination, combined coagulation-disinfection and FO require replacement of
chemicals. Tata Swach, Pureit Ceramic, Terafil, Lifestraw, Lifesaver, bicycle UF and RO
methods require replacements of cartridges or membranes. Boiling and Solar distillation
do not require frequent replacements.
• Pre/Post treatment
UV, SODIS, chlorination require prefiltration to reduce turbidity. Household
ceramic filter, Tata Swach and Pureit operate on water which is already pre-treated by the
municipality. RO incorporates a prefilter and AC pretreatment. None of the purifiers have
a major need for post treatment.
• Rate of Production
Some purifiers have the special ability to meet flexible demands. They are boiling,
SODIS, chlorination and combined coagulation-disinfection. Solar distillation and
forward osmosis have very low rates of production (<0.1 L/hour) making them quite
unfeasible. Tata Swach, HUL Pureit, Ceramic, Terafil and Lifestraw filters have
intermediate discharge rates within 10 L/hour. However UV, BSF, Lifesaver, bicycle UF
and RO have high production rates of more than 10 L/hour.

• Ease of Use
Most of the purifiers do not require any extra effort other than filling feed water
and collecting purified water. However some purifiers like chlorination and combined
coagulation-disinfection require stirring; SODIS and solar desalination require effort to
place the equipments under the sun; Boiling requires heating water and bicycle UF
requires pedalling effort.
• Social Acceptability
While boiling remains a traditionally trusted method of purification, most of the
other purification methods have also been socially accepted. However some purifiers
have not found widespread acceptance like SODIS and solar desalination which are still
in their nascent stages. Chlorination and combined coagulation-disinfection produce bad
taste and odour and hence have not been willingly welcomed. While bicycle based UF
requires some investment and pedalling effort, RO requires huge investments and
electricity which again makes them not readily acceptable.
• Portability
Most of the purifiers considered in this review are portable. Biosand filter is bulky
and takes considerable start-up time before it can be used. Purifiers like Aquaguard
Compact, Reverse Osmosis purifier and ceramic filter are sophisticated and prone to
breakage during transportation especially during emergencies.

Chapter 9
9.1. Advantages of water purifier
• Capacity to remove dangerous substances from your tap water.

A good water filter will tackle a wide spectrum of contaminants ranging from
chlorine to pathogenic bacteria and arsenic. This means that you can drink and cook with
tap water without having to worry about harmful contaminants adversely affecting your
and your family’s health.
• Capacity to improve the taste and odour of tap water.

Removing chlorine and other organic chemicals and sediments means that your tap
water’s taste will no longer be influenced by the presence of these impurities, and you
can enjoy fresh water straight from your tap.
• Drop in bottled water consumption.

Ditching bottled water in favour of filtered tap water means less plastic pollution,
but also more savings. Bottled water costs much more than filtered water, and your
budged will certainly notice the change.
• Cost-efficient investment.
The initial investment and maintenance costs associated with water filters are low,
which makes them a good investment both in the short run and in the long run.
• Filtered water is gentle.

Filtered water is not only a healthy source of hydration, but also a good way to
protect your skin and hair from the harmful effects of chlorine and hard water, and it’s a
first line of defence against chlorine and lime-scale deposits, which can damage your
kitchen appliances.

9.2. Disadvantages of water purifier
• Slow output of water.

When you install a water filter, the flow rate of your tap water will drop.
Depending on the type of filter and filtration method used by your water filter this drop in
water pressure can be significant or hardly noticeable.
• Maintenance is required.
Some level of maintenance is required for all types of water filters. Whether you
need to replace the filter cartridges or you need to clean or sanitise them, you need to
carry out these measures regularly to make sure your filter works at its best.
• Filtration method limitations.

No filter media alone is able to deal with all types of existing contaminants. This
is why good filters are multi-stage filters that combine different filtration methods and
filter media. Before you install a water filter, you need to determine which contaminants
make your water less safe or less palatable and purchase a filter that addresses those exact
issues.

9.3. Application of water purifier
• Food Industries: Ensures bacteria-free water as an additive to the product, and

also as a rinse before packaging, to guard against waterborne bacteria spoilage in
vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, and other products.
• Farms and Ranches: Bacteria-free animal drinking water increases production
by eliminating losses due to waterborne infection. Improved sanitization promotes
healthier stock and higher yields.
• Bottling Manufacture: Ensures bacteria-free water for use in product at
breweries, wineries, and bottling facilities for soft drinks and water.
• Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Industries: Bacteria-free water ensures
compliance with strict water treatment standards necessary for product quality
control.
• Laboratories: Provides water free of microorganisms required for accurate
testing and research.
• Hospitals: Ensures needed water for pathology labs, kidney dialysis, and post
disinfection rinses where bacteria-free water is essential.
• Electronics Industry: Ensures bacteria-free water for use in conjunction with
deionized and high purity water systems.
• Private Homes, Trailer Parks, Recreation Vehicles, Schools, and
Hotels: Provides safe, germ-free drinking water. Destroys bacteria, a serious
problem for rural water supplies, and prevents disease.
• Aquariums and Hatcheries: Bacteria-free water diminishes common issues
related to aquatic life in these environments.
• Wastewater Treatment Plants: Affords an excellent post water treatment of
secondary or tertiary effluent, reducing bacterial concentrations to safe levels
without introducing a toxicant to fish and other marine life in the receiving
waters.
• Nurseries: Bacteria-free water minimizes losses from widespread root rot
infection, a common problem in trees and plants caused by a diseased water
supply.
Chapter 10
10.1. CONCLUDING REMARKS
10.1.1. Conclusions
The outlook of this report was to study, describe and contrast different portable
water purifiers. The drinking water quality standards were described and the issues
plaguing water quality in India was discussed. Subsequently a suitable classification
mechanism and a comprehensive description of a wide spectrum of purifiers was
covered. A review based on multiple attributes was carried out to ascertain the
appropriate choice for specific situations. The following are some observations.
• It was clear that a wide range of alternatives in terms of products as well as

technologies are available in the sector of water purifiers.
• It was found that purifier performance in terms of microbial disinfection showed a
strong correlation with respect to the cost of the purifier.
• Sustainability was not high if the non-renewable energy requirement of the
purifier was high and if the purifier used chemicals for disinfection.
• It was found that sustainability was low for expensive purification technologies
except for chlorine based treatment.
• Purifiers which are easier to use and maintain have found wider acceptance
socially with the exception of chlorine based methods because of their bad taste
and odour.
10.1.2 Discussion
It may also be true that a purifier may be preferred even on a regular basis rather
than just emergency situations. This trend is becoming increasingly common in Indian
household and institutions irrespective of the water quality which is supplied. However
this is not healthy development because this might lead to worsening the quality of
supply systems. Nevertheless, Point of Use and Portable water purifiers may find
increased application for utilising water from decentralized sources like rain water
harvesting, wells, ponds, etc. This study has made an attempt to consider as much

diversity as possible in the type of purification methods and products that might be
suitable in the framework of portable water purifiers. However, the study has a few
limitations partly due to the limited timeframe in which it was carried out. The study has
totally depended on literature (although comprehensive reviews were accessible) and has
not based its data on actual data from products available in the market. The different
attributes considered for review may be of varying importance during different situations.
For e.g. while cost remains a crucial attribute, it is not over-emphasized during
emergencies. Purifier performance will remain an important criteria in most situations
and cannot be overlooked. In terms of a sustainable future, purifiers with low energy
demand need to be preferred, also some energy needs cannot be met during disasters.
Maintenance is often neglected and products which are easy to use and portable tend to
be commonly favoured. A threshold in terms of minimum rate of production is necessary
but beyond the threshold those methods which cater to flexible and large demands may
be opted for. Finally views from the users are also necessary to establish the socio-
cultural acceptability of a product.
10.1.3. Future Scope of Work
Considering all the attributes and alternatives in the review it is difficult to make a
choice right away. However finding out some possible areas for future work can be
determined by analysing different attributes and making out some patterns. Considering
the context of rural and low-income groups in India, it is probably advisable to work in
the future in microfiltration and ultra filtration regimes. Using components which can be
locally sourced and delivering at a nominal price is suggested. While performance cannot
be compromised, the product should not be totally dependent on electricity or mechanical
power sources. Finally the product should be easy to handle & use and in addition socio-
culturally acceptable so that the product finds widespread dissemination. Also more
attributes could be considered to make the review more robust. Importantly, as very few
views were considered from the users of water purifiers regarding the problem of water
treatment, the purification methods they use and their acceptability of a purifier, future
field assessment to ascertain the social acceptability of products becomes indispensable
before any major decisions are taken.

Chapter 11
11.1. References
AC cartridge, 31.10.14. Activated Carbon Cartridge. Indiamart.

http://dir.indiamart.com/impcat/carbon-cartridge.html
Ahammed, M.M., Davra, K., 2011. Performance evaluation of biosand filter modified
with iron oxide-coated sand for household treatment of drinking water. Desalination 276,
287-293.
Agrawal, V. K. and Bhalwar, R., 2009. Household Water Purification: Low-Cost

Interventions. Medical Journal Armed Forces India 65, 260-263.
Aquaguard, 28.10.2014. Aquaguard Compact, Eureka Forbes

http://www.eurekaforbes.com/Product/Water-Purifiers/Aquaguard/Essential/Aquaguard-
Compact?pid=10.
Aquasure, 28.10.2014. Aquasure Xtra Tuff, Eureka Forbes

http://www.eurekaforbes.com/Product/Water-Purifiers/AquaSure/Non-Electric/Aquasure-
Xtra-Tuff?pid=20
ARCI, 29.10.2014. Nanosilver imparted ceramic water filter candles to impart

antibacterial function. International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy &
New Materials http://www.arci.res.in/technologies-transferred#9
Ashbolt, N.J., 2004. Microbial contamination of drinking water and disease outcomes in
developing regions. Toxicology 198, 229–238.
BARC, 28.10.2014. Bicycle Mounted Water Purification (RO/UF) Unit Driven by

Hybrid Power System. Bhabha AtomicResearch Centre.
http://www.barc.gov.in/technologies/bicycle/bicycle_br.html
Berg, P.A., 2010. A new water treatment product for the urban poor in the developing
world. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010: Challenges of
Change ASCE, 2010-2025.

Biosand, 31.10.2014. Biosand Filter. Centre for Affordable Water

and Sanitation Technololgy. http://biosandfilters.info/
Boisson, S., Schmidt, W., Berhanu, T., Gezahegn, H., Clasen, T., 2009. Randomized
controlled trial in rural ethiopia to assess a portable water treatment device.
Environmental Science & Technology 43, 5934–5939.
Boutilier, M. S. H., Lee, J., Chambers, V., Venkatesh, V., Karnik, R., 2014. Water
Filtration Using Plant Xylem. PLoS ONE 9(2): e89934.
CDC, 28.10.2014. The Safe Water System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.cdc.gov.
Christen, A., Navarro, C.M., Mausezahl, D., 2009. Safe drinking water and clean air: an
experimental study evaluating the concept of combining household water treatment and
indoor air improvement using the Water Disinfection Stove (WADIS). International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 212, 562-568.
Clasen, T.F., 2009. Scaling Up Household Water Treatment Among Low-Income

Populations. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Clearing nut, 31.10.2014. Strychnos potatorum (clearing nut) seeds. Foundation for
Revitalization of Local Health Traditions. http://envis.frlht.org/raw-drug.php?show=220.
DDWS, 2011. Department of Drinking Water Supply. Compiled from the online data of
National Rural Drinking Water Programme. Accessible from
http://indiawater.gov.in/imisreports/nrdwpmain.aspx.
Dorea, C.C., 2009. Coagulant-based emergency water treatment. Desalination 248, 83-
90.
Flendrig, L.M., Shah, B., Subrahmaniam, N., Ramakrishnan, V., 2009. Low cost
thermoformed solar still water purifier for D&E countries. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth 34, 50–54.

Gadgil, A., 1998. Drinking water in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy and
the Environment 23, 253–286.
Garsadi, R., Salim, H.T., Soekarno, I., Doppenberg, A.F.J., Verberk, J.Q.J.C., 2009.
Operational experience with a micro hydraulic mobile water treatment plant in Indonesia
after the “Tsunami of 2004’’. Desalination 248, 91-98.
Gerba, C.P., Naranjo, J.E., 2000. Microbiological water purification without the use of
chemical disinfection. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 11, 12-16.
Gupta, S.K., Islam, M.S., Johnston, R., Ram, P.K., Luby, S.P., 2008. The Chulli water
purifier: acceptability and effectiveness of an innovative strategy for household water
treatment in Bangladesh. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 78,
979- 984.
He, Y., 2009. Transportable membrane system produces drinking water. Membrane
Technology 2009, 8-9.
HTI, 29.10.2014. HTI Products. Hydration Technology Innovations

http://www.htiwater.com/shop/hydration_products.php.
Jaldoot, 29.10.2014. Jaldoot – the water messenger’. Swayamsiddha Mahila Utkarsha

Foundation http://www.jaldoot.org/.
Jaltara, 29.10.2014. Jaltara: BARC Technology Water Purifier. Sonadka

http://www.sonadka.net/barc-technology-water-purifier.html
Kang, G., Roy, S., Balraj, V., 2006. Appropriate technology for rural India – solar
decontamination of water for emergency settings and small communities. Transactions of
the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 100, 863-866.
Kent RO, 31.10.2014. Reverse Osmosis Purifier. Kent Mineral RO Water Purifiers.
Source: http://www.kent.co.in/Products-Water-Purifiers-RO.

Project Phase 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Phase 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

JNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI -590018

Under the Guidance of:

Dr. SANJEEV REDDY K.HUDGIKAR

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LINGARAJ APPA ENGINEERING COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Certified that the Project work, entitled “WATER PURIFIER WITH

Project Guide Head of the department Principal

Name of the Examiners Signature with date

We MOHAMMAD SAMEER 3LA15ME047, MUSAIB TALHA

MOHAMMAD SAMEER 3LA15ME047

We express our sincere thanks to our beloved Principal Dr.Sanjeev Reddy. K.

We are greatly indebted to Prof.Vijayanand B Kapte, Head of Department,

We take this opportunity to sincerely acknowledgement all the colleagues, Teaching

MOHAMMAD SAMEER 3LA15ME047

1.1. Introduction ………………………………………… 1

2.1. History ……………………………………………….. 2

3.1. Objectives …………………………………………… 5

3.2. Outline of report …………………………………… 5

4.1. Terminologies and standards …………………….. 6

4.1.1. Drinking water quality and standards …………………….. 6

4.1.1.1. Drinking water ……………………………………………… 6

4.1.1.2. Water quality specification ………………………………… 6

4.2. Bureau of Indian specification ……………………. 7

5.1. Classification of water purifier ………………….. 8

5.1.1. Thermal or light base treatment …………………………. 8

5.1.2. Physical removal methods ………………………………… 8

5.1.3. Chemical treatment technique ……………………………. 9

5.1.5. Novel purifiers ……………………………………………. 9

5.2. Description of purifier alternatives ……………. 10

5.2.1. Thermal or light base treatment techniques …………… 10

5.2.1.1. Boiling …………………………………………………….. 10

5.2.1.2. Thermal pasteurization …………………………………. 12

5.2.1.3. Solar disinfection ………………………………………… 13

5.2.1.4. Solar distillation ………………………………................. 14

5.2.1.5. Ultraviolet treatment ……………………………………. 15

5.2.2. Physical removal methods ……………………. ………. 16

5.2.2.1. Sedimentation or clarification ………………………… 16

5.2.2.2. Biosand filter ……………………………………………. 17

5.2.3. Chemical treatment ……………………………………… 18

5.2.3.1. Chlorination …………………………………………….. 19

5.2.3.2. Combined flocculation and disinfection …………….. 21

5.2.4. Membrane base treatment ……………………………. 22

5.2.4.1. Reverse osmosis purifier ………………………………. 22

6.1. Sensor for automatic pouring tap ……………. 24

6.2. Data sheet ……………………………………… 25

6.3. Program of sensor …………………………….. 26

7.1. Review of purifier alternatives ……………….. 28

7.1.1. Description of attribute ……………………………….. 28

7.2. Comparison of alternatives ………………….. 31

8.1. Analysis of review of alternatives ……….….. 34

9.1.1. Advantages ……………………………………. 37

9.1.2. Disadvantages ………………………………… 38

9.1.3. Application ……………………………………. 39

10.1. Concluding remarks …………………………. 40

10.1.1. Conclusion ……………………………………………. 40

10.1.2. Discussion ……………………………………………. 40

10.1.3. Future scope of work ……………………………….. 41

11.1. Reference …………………………………… 42

1.2. Motivation for the Study

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LAEC BIDAR Page 1

According to Wikipedia, Ancient Sanskrit and Egyptian writings document