Water Purifying Devices
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Water Purifying Devices as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,770
- Pages: 42
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
Literature Reviews
Survey of the Study Area
Study Methodology 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
Machine Features Type of Water Purifier Storage Capacity (Litres)
Hindustan Unilever Pureit
Zero BZero B Puriline 2L
Eureka ForbesAquaSure
Eureka ForbesAquagua rd Classic
Eureka ForbesAquaguard Total Sensa
Eureka ForbesAquagua rd Integra7
Hi-techWater Lagoon
Kenstar -Le pure
PhilipsWP 3893
Whirlpoo lPurafresh Platinum
Storage
Direct Flow
Storage
Direct Flow
Storage
Storage
Storage
Direct Flow
Direct Flow
Direct Flow
9
--
13
--
9.5
8
6.5
--
--
--
Methods of Purification Purification Stages
4
3
4
Germ kill Processor and Unique Polisher
Post Carbon Filter (Silver Impregnated)
Active Disinfectant / Special Carbon
3
4
7
7
Argentum Nano Fresh+
Health and taste Cartridge / Reverse Osmosis
5 Micron Inline Sediment Filter, Pre and Post Carbon Filter, Intensified Filter and Ceramic Filter with RO Membrane
3
3
5
Sediment Filter
Neo Sense Filter and Post Carbon Filter
Pre-Filter Purification
Silver-Impregnated Activated Carbon Purification Ultra-Violet Purification
Reverse Osmosis
Other Methods
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 00
Houses( %)
5
1,00,0 00 – 5,00,0 00 57
5,00,00 0– 10,00,0 00 27
>10,00, 000
11
Sr . N o. 1
Source
Hous es (%)
SMC
66
2
Boring
26
3
Tube Well
3
4
Lake/River/P ond
2
5
Others
3
Water Used (liters) <10
Houses (%)
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 R/O Kent R/O
20 3
Aqua Sure
1
Forbes
4
Cost of Filter
Houses (%)
<1,000 1,000 to 2,500
13 9
2,500 to 5,000
28
>5,000
50
Maintenance Period Once a Year
Houses (%) 25
Twice a Year
28
3 – 4 Times in a Year Monthly
28
Daily
11 8
Information Source
Houses (%)
Friend
27
Sales-Man
24
News Paper
16
TV
33
SMC
Boring
Hitech
Other
2
Candle
4
2
Boiling
5
5
25
6
Whirlpool
2
Filtration
4
Kenstar Zero B
Aquagaurd R/O
Well
Total
2
Phillips
Aquagaurd
River/Lake/Pond
2 2 6 2 2
33 2
4 2
8 2
4
2
14
12
1
5
1
3
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
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
Aquagaurd
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 Aquagaurd R/O
0 0
0 7
0 5
3 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 mp le No. 0
Sample type
SMC
2
1
Boiled water
2
2
Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Classic Philips WP 3893
2
3 4
Turbidity (NTU)
2
Eureka Forbes Sensa Eureka Forbes Aquasure
1.5
6
Hindustan Unilever Pureit
1.4
7
Whirlpool – Purafresh platinum Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7 Kenstar Le pure
1.4
Zero B Puriline 2L
1.7
5
8 9 10
1.6
1.4 1.4
S a m pl e N 0 o 1
Sample type
pH
SMC
6-7
Boiled water
6-7
2
Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Classic Philips WP 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa Eureka Forbes Aquasure Hindustan Unilever Pureit Whirlpool – Purafresh platinum
7-8
Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7 Kenstar Le pure Zero B Puriline 2L
7-8
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 1 0
7-8 7-8 7-8 7-8 7-8
7-8 7-8
Sampl e No.
Sample type
Phenolpht halein Alkalinity( mg/L)
Methyl Orange Alkalinity (mg/L)
Total alkalinity T(mg/L)
0
SMC
0
252
252
1
Boiled water
0
288
288
2
Eureka ForbesAquaga urd Classic Philips WP 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa
0
240
240
0
288
288
0
268
268
Eureka Forbes Aquasur e Hindust an Unilever Pureit Whirlpo ol – Purafres h Platinu Eureka m Forbes Aquaga urd Integra7 Kenstar Le pure
0
252
252
0
196
196
0
240
240
0
80
80
0
260
260
Zero B Puriline 2L
0
284
284
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10
S ampl e No. 0
Total Hardnes s(mg/L)
Calcium Hardness (mg/L)
SMC
156
84
Magnesiu m Hardness (mg/L) 72
1
Boiled water
156
92
64
2
Eureka ForbesAquaga urd Classic Philips WP 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa
144
88
56
140
84
56
128
68
60
Eureka Forbes Aquasur e Hindust an Unilever Pureit Whirlpo ol – Purafres h Platinu Eureka m Forbes Aquaga urd Integra7 Kenstar Le Pure
156
100
56
120
72
48
120
72
48
32
16
16
112
68
44
Zero B Puriline 2L
136
80
56
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Sample type
S amp le No. 0
Sample type
SMC
69.97
1
Boiled water
73.97
2
Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Philips WP Classic 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa
71.97
5
Eureka Forbes Aquasure
85.97
6
Hindustan Unilever Pureit
65.97
7
Whirlpool – Purafresh Platinum
73.97
8
Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7
31.99
9
Kenstar Le Pure Zero B Puriline 2L
79.97
3 4
10
Total Chloride(mg/L)
75.97 83.97
71.97
Sa mpl e no.
0
SMC
0
0
0
0
Tota l avai labl e resi dual 0 C-B 2
1
Boiled water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Eurek a Forbe sAqua gaurd Philip Classi s c WP 3893
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eurek a Forbe s Eurek Sensa a Forbe s Aquas Hindu ure stan Unilev er Pureit Whirl pool – Purafr esh Platin um
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eurek a Forbe s Aqua gaurd Integr Kenst a-7 ar Le Pure Zero B Purilin e 2L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Samp le type
T ube A
T ube B1
T ube B2
T ube C
Free avai labl e resi dual A-B1 0
C ombi ned avail able resid ual 0
Sample No.
Sample type
Colonies found during Completed Test No
MPN index P= 100 ml
0
SMC
1
Boiled water Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Classic
No
<2.2
No
<2.2
3
Philips WP 3893
No
<2.2
4
Eureka Forbes Sensa Eureka Forbes Aquasure Hindustan Unilever Pureit
No
<2.2
Yes
>16
No
<2.2
2
5 6
5.1
7
Whirlpool – Purafresh Platinum
No
5.1
8
Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7 Kenstar Le Pure
No
<2.2
No
<2.2
Zero B Puriline 2L
No
<2.2
9 10
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 (
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.
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
Literature Reviews
Survey of the Study Area
Study Methodology 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
Machine Features Type of Water Purifier Storage Capacity (Litres)
Hindustan Unilever Pureit
Zero BZero B Puriline 2L
Eureka ForbesAquaSure
Eureka ForbesAquagua rd Classic
Eureka ForbesAquaguard Total Sensa
Eureka ForbesAquagua rd Integra7
Hi-techWater Lagoon
Kenstar -Le pure
PhilipsWP 3893
Whirlpoo lPurafresh Platinum
Storage
Direct Flow
Storage
Direct Flow
Storage
Storage
Storage
Direct Flow
Direct Flow
Direct Flow
9
--
13
--
9.5
8
6.5
--
--
--
Methods of Purification Purification Stages
4
3
4
Germ kill Processor and Unique Polisher
Post Carbon Filter (Silver Impregnated)
Active Disinfectant / Special Carbon
3
4
7
7
Argentum Nano Fresh+
Health and taste Cartridge / Reverse Osmosis
5 Micron Inline Sediment Filter, Pre and Post Carbon Filter, Intensified Filter and Ceramic Filter with RO Membrane
3
3
5
Sediment Filter
Neo Sense Filter and Post Carbon Filter
Pre-Filter Purification
Silver-Impregnated Activated Carbon Purification Ultra-Violet Purification
Reverse Osmosis
Other Methods
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 00
Houses( %)
5
1,00,0 00 – 5,00,0 00 57
5,00,00 0– 10,00,0 00 27
>10,00, 000
11
Sr . N o. 1
Source
Hous es (%)
SMC
66
2
Boring
26
3
Tube Well
3
4
Lake/River/P ond
2
5
Others
3
Water Used (liters) <10
Houses (%)
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 R/O Kent R/O
20 3
Aqua Sure
1
Forbes
4
Cost of Filter
Houses (%)
<1,000 1,000 to 2,500
13 9
2,500 to 5,000
28
>5,000
50
Maintenance Period Once a Year
Houses (%) 25
Twice a Year
28
3 – 4 Times in a Year Monthly
28
Daily
11 8
Information Source
Houses (%)
Friend
27
Sales-Man
24
News Paper
16
TV
33
SMC
Boring
Hitech
Other
2
Candle
4
2
Boiling
5
5
25
6
Whirlpool
2
Filtration
4
Kenstar Zero B
Aquagaurd R/O
Well
Total
2
Phillips
Aquagaurd
River/Lake/Pond
2 2 6 2 2
33 2
4 2
8 2
4
2
14
12
1
5
1
3
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
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
Aquagaurd
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 Aquagaurd R/O
0 0
0 7
0 5
3 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 mp le No. 0
Sample type
SMC
2
1
Boiled water
2
2
Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Classic Philips WP 3893
2
3 4
Turbidity (NTU)
2
Eureka Forbes Sensa Eureka Forbes Aquasure
1.5
6
Hindustan Unilever Pureit
1.4
7
Whirlpool – Purafresh platinum Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7 Kenstar Le pure
1.4
Zero B Puriline 2L
1.7
5
8 9 10
1.6
1.4 1.4
S a m pl e N 0 o 1
Sample type
pH
SMC
6-7
Boiled water
6-7
2
Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Classic Philips WP 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa Eureka Forbes Aquasure Hindustan Unilever Pureit Whirlpool – Purafresh platinum
7-8
Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7 Kenstar Le pure Zero B Puriline 2L
7-8
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 1 0
7-8 7-8 7-8 7-8 7-8
7-8 7-8
Sampl e No.
Sample type
Phenolpht halein Alkalinity( mg/L)
Methyl Orange Alkalinity (mg/L)
Total alkalinity T(mg/L)
0
SMC
0
252
252
1
Boiled water
0
288
288
2
Eureka ForbesAquaga urd Classic Philips WP 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa
0
240
240
0
288
288
0
268
268
Eureka Forbes Aquasur e Hindust an Unilever Pureit Whirlpo ol – Purafres h Platinu Eureka m Forbes Aquaga urd Integra7 Kenstar Le pure
0
252
252
0
196
196
0
240
240
0
80
80
0
260
260
Zero B Puriline 2L
0
284
284
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10
S ampl e No. 0
Total Hardnes s(mg/L)
Calcium Hardness (mg/L)
SMC
156
84
Magnesiu m Hardness (mg/L) 72
1
Boiled water
156
92
64
2
Eureka ForbesAquaga urd Classic Philips WP 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa
144
88
56
140
84
56
128
68
60
Eureka Forbes Aquasur e Hindust an Unilever Pureit Whirlpo ol – Purafres h Platinu Eureka m Forbes Aquaga urd Integra7 Kenstar Le Pure
156
100
56
120
72
48
120
72
48
32
16
16
112
68
44
Zero B Puriline 2L
136
80
56
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Sample type
S amp le No. 0
Sample type
SMC
69.97
1
Boiled water
73.97
2
Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Philips WP Classic 3893 Eureka Forbes Sensa
71.97
5
Eureka Forbes Aquasure
85.97
6
Hindustan Unilever Pureit
65.97
7
Whirlpool – Purafresh Platinum
73.97
8
Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7
31.99
9
Kenstar Le Pure Zero B Puriline 2L
79.97
3 4
10
Total Chloride(mg/L)
75.97 83.97
71.97
Sa mpl e no.
0
SMC
0
0
0
0
Tota l avai labl e resi dual 0 C-B 2
1
Boiled water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Eurek a Forbe sAqua gaurd Philip Classi s c WP 3893
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eurek a Forbe s Eurek Sensa a Forbe s Aquas Hindu ure stan Unilev er Pureit Whirl pool – Purafr esh Platin um
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eurek a Forbe s Aqua gaurd Integr Kenst a-7 ar Le Pure Zero B Purilin e 2L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Samp le type
T ube A
T ube B1
T ube B2
T ube C
Free avai labl e resi dual A-B1 0
C ombi ned avail able resid ual 0
Sample No.
Sample type
Colonies found during Completed Test No
MPN index P= 100 ml
0
SMC
1
Boiled water Eureka ForbesAquagaurd Classic
No
<2.2
No
<2.2
3
Philips WP 3893
No
<2.2
4
Eureka Forbes Sensa Eureka Forbes Aquasure Hindustan Unilever Pureit
No
<2.2
Yes
>16
No
<2.2
2
5 6
5.1
7
Whirlpool – Purafresh Platinum
No
5.1
8
Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Integra-7 Kenstar Le Pure
No
<2.2
No
<2.2
Zero B Puriline 2L
No
<2.2
9 10
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 (
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.
Related Documents
Water Purifying Devices
June 2020 0
Devices
November 2019 50
Devices Pdf
July 2020 12
External Devices
November 2019 24
Display Devices
June 2020 14
Input Devices
June 2020 43More Documents from ""
