Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 437–452 | Cite as

A multi-attribute decision-making approach to the selection of point-of-use water treatment

  • Sheree A. Pagsuyoin
  • Joost R. Santos
  • Jana S. Latayan
  • John R. Barajas
Article
  • 301 Downloads

Abstract

Despite the recent major accomplishment in meeting our global water target in the UN Millennium Development Goal 7, a significant number of people, mostly in low-income regions, are still without access to reliable and safe water sources. To address the health burden of inadequate water in these regions, several point-of-use (POU) treatment technologies have been developed and are now available in the market. This outcome has created both an opportunity and a challenge in selecting technologies that are suitable in poor communities. In the current work, we present an application of the multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methodology to rank and select options for POU water treatment technologies that are appropriate for low-income communities. The paper makes three significant research contributions. Firstly, we review the features, efficacy, and operation of currently available POU water treatment technologies to identify challenges in their implementation. Secondly, we propose a set of evaluation criteria, categorized into four general themes, for assessing the efficacy and suitability of a POU water treatment technology in a given area. We also examine the application of MADM methodology in prioritizing alternatives using these criteria as attributes. Finally, we present a case application of our proposed methodology in a rural municipality in Quezon Province, Philippines. Six common POU water treatment alternatives were considered: solar disinfection, boiling, chlorination, combined disinfection and flocculation with Moringa oleifera, ceramic filtration and biosand filtration. Results of the analysis show that water treatment with M. oleifera and ceramic filters are the most preferred treatment alternatives in the municipality, while chlorination is the least preferred. The most important factors for selecting water treatment methods are initial costs, by-products of water treatment, throughput, and energy input. The proposed MADM model can be applied to other areas where a centralized water treatment system is not available, and a suitable POU water treatment is needed. The inclusion of multi criteria considerations in the selection process ensures that the chosen POU water treatment provides the optimal health, economic, and environmental benefits to the community.

Keywords

Point-of-use water treatment Sustainability Multi-attribute decision making 

References

  1. Arnold B, Colford J (2007) Treating water with chlorine at point-of-use to improve water quality and reduce child diarrhea in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 76(2):354–364Google Scholar
  2. Barajas JR, Pagsuyoin SAT (2015) Development of a low-cost water treatment technology using Moringa oleifera seeds. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE systems and information engineering design symposium, Charlottesville, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartram J, Cairncross S (2010) Hygiene, sanitation, and water: forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med 7(11):e1000367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Sys App 17(39):13051–13069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown J, Proum S, Sobsey M (2009) Sustained use of a household-scale water filtration device in rural Cambodia. J Water Health 7(3):404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bukar A, Uba A, Oyeyi T (2010) Antimicrobial profile of Moringa oleifera Lam. Extracts against some food-borne microorganisms. Bayero J Pure Appl Sci 3(1):43–48Google Scholar
  7. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2012) Ceramic filtration. http://www.cdc.gov/safewater/ceramic-filtration.html. Accessed 23 April 2015
  8. Checkley W, Buckley G, Gilman RH, Assis AMO, Guerrant RL, Morris SS et al (2008) Multi-country analysis of the effects of diarrhoea on childhood stunting. Int J Epidemiol 37(4):816–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen KT (2010) The economic burden of rotavirus diarrhea: Taiwan perspectives. In: Preedy V, Watson R (eds) Handbook of disease burdens and quality of life measures. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1243–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen Y, Ahsan H (2004) Cancer burden from arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh. Am J Public Health 94(5):741–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clasen T, Schmidt WP, Rabie T, Roberts I, Cairncross S (2007) Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhea: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334(7597):782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clemen RT, Reilley T (2014) Making hard decisions with decision tools, 3rd edn. Cengage Learning, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Demarest J, Pagsuyoin S, Learmonth G, Mellor J, Dillingham R (2013) Development of a spatial and temporal agent-based model for studying water and health relationships: the case study of two villages in Limpopo, South Africa. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 16(4)Google Scholar
  14. Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win–win–win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manag Rev 36(2):90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott MA, Stauber CE, Koksal F, DiGiano FA, Sobsey MD (2008) Reductions of E. coli, echovirus type 12 and bacteriophages in an intermittently operated household-scale slow sand filter. Water Res 42(10):2662–2670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fewtrell L, Kaufmann RB, Kay D, Enanoria W, Haller L, Colford JM (2005) Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhea in less developed countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 5(1):42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garland R (1991) The mid-point on a rating scale: is it desirable. Market Bull 2(1):66–70Google Scholar
  18. Gopal K, Tripathy SS, Bersillon JL, Dubey SP (2007) Chlorination byproducts, their toxicodynamics and removal from drinking water. J Hazard Mater 140:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guerrant DI, Moore SR, Lima AAM, Patrick PD, Schorling JB, Guerrant RL (1999) Association of early childhood diarrhea and cryptosporidiosis with impaired physical fitness and cognitive function four-seven years later in a poor urban community in northeast Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg 61(5):707–713Google Scholar
  20. Gupta SK, Islam MS, Johnston R, Ram PK, Luby SP (2008) The chulli water purifier: acceptability and effectiveness of an innovative strategy for household water treatment in Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg 78(6):979–984Google Scholar
  21. Hamouda MA, Anderson WB, Huck PM (2012) Employing multi-criteria decision analysis to select sustainable point-of-use and point-of-entry water treatment systems. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 12(5):637–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanjra MA, Qureshi ME (2010) Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy 35(5):365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunter P, MacDonald A, Carter R (2010) Water supply and health. PLoS Med 7(11):e1000361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lantagne D, Clasen T (2009) Point of use water treatment in emergency response. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KR (2003) The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 12(1):50Google Scholar
  28. Levy K, Anderson L, Robb K, Cevallos W, Trueba G, Eisenberg J (2007) Household effectiveness vs. laboratory efficacy of point-of-use chlorination. Water Res 54:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liang KR (2007) Independent evaluation of the biosand water filter in rural Cambodia: sustainability, health, impact and water quality improvement. University of North Carolina, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  30. Loo SL, Fane AG, Krantz WB, Lim TT (2012) Emergency water supply: a review of potential technologies and selection criteria. Water Res 46(10):3125–3151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lotfi FH, Fallahnejad R (2010) Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy 12(1):53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luby SP, Mendoza C, Keswick BH, Chiller TM, Hoekstra R (2008) Difficulties in bringing point-of-use water treatment to scale in rural Guatemala. Am J Trop Med Hyg 78(3):382–387Google Scholar
  33. McGuigan KG, Méndez-Hermida F, Castro-Hermida JA, Ares-Mazás E, Kehoe SC, Boyle M, Sichel C, Fernandez Ibañez P, Meyer BP, Ramalingham S, Meyer EA (2006) Batch solar disinfection inactivates oocysts of Cryptosporidium parvum and cysts of Giardia muris in drinking water. J Appl Microbiol 101(2):453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGuigan KG, Conroy R, Mosler HJ, du Preez M, Ubomba-Jaswa E, Fernandez Ibañez P (2012) Solar water disinfection (SODIS): a review from bench-top to roof-top. J Hazard Mater 235–236:29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLaughlin L, Levy K, Beck N, Shin GA, Meschke JS, Eisenberg J (2009) An observational study on the effectiveness of point-of-use chlorination. J Environ Health 71(8):48–53Google Scholar
  36. Meierhofer R, Landolt G (2009) Factors supporting the sustained use of solar water disinfection—experiences from a global promotion and dissemination programme. Desalination 248:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mintz E, Bartram J, Lochery P, Wegelin M (2001) Not just a drop in the bucket: expanding access to point-of-use water treatment systems. Am J Public Health 91(10):1565–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montgomery MA, Elimelech M (2007) Water and sanitation in developing countries: including health in the equation. Environ Sci Technol 41(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Statistics Office (2010) Total population by province, city, municipality and Barangay: as of May 1, 2010. 2010 Census of Population and Housing. http://web0.psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/CALABARZON.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2013
  40. Ndabigengesere A, Narasiah S (1998) Quality of water treated by coagulation using Moringa oleifera seeds. Water Res 32(3):781–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Onda K, LoBuglio J, Bartram J (2012) Global access to safe water: accounting for water quality and the resulting impact on MDG progress. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9(3):880–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Otway HJ, Von Winterfeldt D (1982) Beyond acceptable risk: on the social acceptability of technologies. Policy Sci 14(3):247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pegram GC, Rollins N, Espey Q (1998) Estimating the costs of diarrhea and epidemic dysentery in KwaZulu-Natal and South Africa. Water SA-Pretoria 24:11–20Google Scholar
  44. Pomerol JC, Barbra-Romero S (2000) Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ren D, Colosi L, Smith J (2013) Evaluating the sustainability of ceramic filters for point-of-use drinking water treatment. Environ Sci Technol 47(19):11206–11213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosa G, Miller L, Clasen T (2010) Microbiological effectiveness of disinfecting water by boiling in rural Guatemala. Am J Trop Med Hyg 82(3):473–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadiq R, Rodriguez M (2004) Disinfection by-products (DBPs) in drinking water and predictive models for their occurrence: a review. Sci Total Environ 321:21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Santos JR, Latayan JS, Pagsuyoin SA, Srija S (2015a) A stakeholder-based survey for assessing the viability of a water biofilter concept in the Philippines. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE systems and information engineering design symposium, Charlottesville, VAGoogle Scholar
  50. Santos JR, Pagsuyoin SA, Latayan JS (2015b) A multi-criteria decision analysis framework for evaluating point-of-use water treatment alternatives. Clean Technol Envir Policy (submitted)Google Scholar
  51. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith EM, Plewa MJ, Lindell CL, Richardson SD, Mitch WA (2010) Comparison of byproduct formation in waters treated with chlorine and iodine: relevance to point-of-use treatment. Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8446–8452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sobsey MD, Stauber CE, Casanova LM, Brown JM, Elliott MA (2008) Point of use household drinking water filtration: a practical, effective solution for providing sustained access to safe drinking water in the developing world. Environ Sci Technol 42(12):4261–4267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tan YS, Fraser NM (1998) The modified star graph and the petal diagram: two new visual aids for discrete alternative multicriteria decision making. Multi Criteria Decis Anal 7(1):20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tate JE, Chitambar S, Esposito DH, Sarkar R, Gladstone B, Ramani S, Raghava MV, Sowmyanarayanan TV, Gandhe S, Arora R, Parashar UD, Kang G (2009) Disease and economic burden of rotavirus diarrhea in India. Vaccine 27(Suppl 5):F18–F24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund and Water and Sanitation Program (2007) Improving household drinking water quality: use of ceramic water filters in Cambodia. http://www.unicef.org/eapro/WSP_UNICEF_FN_CWP_Final.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2015
  57. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Guidance for implementing a POU or POE treatment strategy for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act-revised final draft. www.epa.gove/safewater/standard/pou.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2015
  58. van der Laan H, van Halem D, Smeets PWMH, Soppe AIA, Kroesbergen J, Wubbels G, Nederstigt J, Gensburger I, Heijman SGJ (2014) Bacteria and virus removal effectiveness of ceramic pot filters with different silver applications in a long term experiment. Water Res 51:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Halem D, van der Laan H, Heijman SGJ, van Dijk JC, Amy GL (2009) Assessing the sustainability of the silver-impregnated ceramic pot filter for low-cost household drinking water treatment. Phys Chem Earth 34:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walker CL, Friberg IK, Binkin N, Young M, Walker N, Fontaine O, Weissman E, Gupta A, Black RE (2011) Scaling up diarrhea prevention and treatment interventions: a Lives Saved tool analysis. PLoS Med 8(3):e1000428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. World Economic Forum (2015) Global risks 2015. World Economic Forum: Geneva. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report15.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2015
  62. World Health Organization (2013a) Diarrhoeal Disease. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/. Accessed 28 March 2015
  63. World Health Organization (2013b) Fact sheet on the world malaria report 2013. http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world_malaria_report_2013/en/. Accessed 27 March 2015
  64. World Health Organization (2013c) Technical notes on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in emergencies. http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/who_notes/WHO_TNE_ALL.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015
  65. World Health Organization (2015) Technical brief on boiling water. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/Boiling_water_01_15.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2015
  66. World Health Organization and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) (2014) Progress on drinking water and sanitation 2014 update. http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/JMP_report_2014_webEng.pdf. Accessed 26 March 2015
  67. Zah R, Böni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wäger P (2007) Life cycle assessment of energy products: environmental assessment of biofuels. Technical Report. http://www.globalbioenergy.org/bioenergyinfo/sort-by-date/detail/pt/c/3966. Accessed 27 March 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheree A. Pagsuyoin
    • 1
  • Joost R. Santos
    • 2
  • Jana S. Latayan
    • 3
  • John R. Barajas
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Massachusetts-LowellLowellUSA
  2. 2.George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Acton-Boxborough Regional High SchoolActonUSA
  4. 4.De La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations