1932

Abstract

Chemical contamination of drinking water (including salinity) puts more than one billion people at risk of adverse health effects globally. Resource-constrained communities are the most affected and face unique challenges that require innovative safe water solutions. This review focuses on arsenic, fluoride, nitrates, lead, chromium, total dissolved solids, emerging organic contaminants, and, to a lesser extent, manganese, cadmium, selenium, and uranium. It covers contaminant prevalence, major health effects, and treatment technologies or avoidance strategies that have been proven effective in realistic water matrices and conditions. The review covers the levelized costs of water for pilot- and full-scale systems most relevant to resource-constrained communities, with a focus on component costs, including the costs of power systems, lifting water, waste management, and labor. These costs are not universally reported, but can be significant. The findingsare analyzed and discussed in the context of providing sustainable safe water solutions in resource-constrained settings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-105152
2020-10-17
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/45/1/annurev-environ-012220-105152.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-105152&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Prüss-Ustün A, Vickers C, Haefliger P, Bertollini R 2011. Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review. Environ. Health 10:9–24
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Lipczynska-Kochany E. 2018. Effect of climate change on humic substances and associated impacts on the quality of surface water and groundwater: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 640/641:1548–65
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Allaire M, Wu H, Lall U 2018. National trends in drinking water quality violations. PNAS 115:2078–83
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Prüss-Ustün A, Wolf J, Bartram J, Clasen T, Cumming O et al. 2019. Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: an updated analysis with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 222:765–77
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    McFarlane K, Harris LM. 2018. Small systems, big challenges: review of small drinking water system governance. Environ. Rev. 26:378–95
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Flanagan S, Spayd S, Procopio N, Marvinney R, Smith A et al. 2016. Arsenic in private well water. Part 3 of 3: Socioeconomic vulnerability to exposure in Maine and New Jersey. Sci. Total Environ. 562:1019–30
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Jagtap S. 2019. Key guidelines for designing integrated solutions to support development of marginalised societies. J. Clean. Prod. 219:148–65
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Chakraborti D, Das B, Rahman M, Nayak B, Pal A et al. 2017. Arsenic in groundwater of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), India: critical review and modes of mitigation. Chemosphere 180:437–47
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Singh SK, Taylor RW. 2019. Assessing the role of risk perception in ensuring sustainable arsenic mitigation. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 9:100241
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Moore E, Matalon E, Balazs C, Clary J, Firestone L et al. 2011. The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley Oakland, CA: Pac. Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Clancy TM, Hayes KF, Raskin L 2013. Arsenic waste management: a critical review of testing and disposal of arsenic-bearing solid wastes generated during arsenic removal from drinking water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:10799–812
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Panagopoulos A, Haralambous KJ, Loizidou M 2019. Desalination brine disposal methods and treatment technologies—a review. Sci. Total Environ. 693:133545
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Rossiter H, Owusu P, Awuah E, Macdonald A, Schäfer A 2010. Chemical drinking water quality in Ghana: water costs and scope for advanced treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 408:2378–86
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Hering JG, Katsoyiannis IA, Theoduloz GA, Berg M, Hug SJ 2017. Arsenic removal from drinking water: experiences with technologies and constraints in practice. J. Environ. Eng. 143:3117002
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Amrose S, Burt Z, Ray I 2015. Safe drinking water for low-income regions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40:203–31
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Kabir A, Howard G. 2007. Sustainability of arsenic mitigation in Bangladesh: results of a functionality survey. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 17:207–18
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Johnson AC, Bretzler A. 2017. Geogenic Contamination Handbook: Addressing Arsenic and Fluoride in Drinking Water Dübendorf, Switz: Fed. Inst. Aquat. Sci. Technol.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Lilje J, Mosler HJ. 2017. Socio-psychological determinants for safe drinking water consumption behaviors: a multi-country review. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 7:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Gebauer H, Saul CJ. 2014. Business model innovation in the water sector in developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 488–489:512–20
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Teodosiu C, Gilca AF, Barjoveanu G, Fiore S 2018. Emerging pollutants removal through advanced drinking water treatment: a review on processes and environmental performances assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 197:1210–21
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Pomati F, Orlandi C, Clerici M, Luciani F, Zuccato E 2007. Effects and interactions in an environmentally relevant mixture of pharmaceuticals. Toxicol. Sci. 102:129–37
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Houtman CJ. 2010. Emerging contaminants in surface waters and their relevance for the production of drinking water in Europe. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 7:271–95
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Fluet MJ, Vescovi L, Bokoye AI 2009. Water and climate change: citizen mobilization, a source of solutions United Nations World Water Dev. Rep. N-3-2009, UNESCO Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    D'Alessio M, Yoneyama B, Kirs M, Kisand V, Ray C 2015. Pharmaceutically active compounds: their removal during slow sand filtration and their impact on slow sand filtration bacterial removal. Sci. Total Environ. 524–525:124–35
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Chowdhury S, Mazumder MA, Al-Attas O, Husain T 2016. Heavy metals in drinking water: occurrences, implications, and future needs in developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 569/570:476–88
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Joseph L, Jun BM, Flora JR, Park CM, Yoon Y 2019. Removal of heavy metals from water sources in the developing world using low-cost materials: a review. Chemosphere 229:142–59
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Bolisetty S, Peydayesh M, Mezzenga R 2019. Sustainable technologies for water purification from heavy metals: review and analysis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 48:463–87
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Shan Y, Mehta P, Perera D, Varela Y 2018. Cost and efficiency of arsenic removal from groundwater: a review United Nations Univ. Rep. 05, United Nations Univ. Inst. Water Environ. Health Hamilton, Can.:
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Shakoor MB, Nawaz R, Hussain F, Raza M, Ali S et al. 2017. Human health implications, risk assessment and remediation of As-contaminated water: a critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 601/602:756–69
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Kubier A, Pichler T. 2019. Cadmium in groundwater—a synopsis based on a large hydrogeochemical data set. Sci. Total Environ. 689:831–42
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Fed. Provinc. Territ. Comm. Drink. Water 2019. Cadmium in drinking water: guideline technical document for public consultation Guideline, Health Canada Ottawa, Can.:
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Moffat I, Martinova N, Seidel C, Thompson CM 2018. Hexavalent chromium in drinking water. Am. Water Works Assoc. 110:E22–35
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Kimambo V, Bhattacharya P, Mtalo F, Mtamba J, Ahmad A 2019. Fluoride occurrence in groundwater systems at global scale and status of defluoridation—state of the art. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 9:100223
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Yadav K, Kumar S, Pham Q, Gupta N, Rezania S et al. 2019. Fluoride contamination, health problems and remediation methods in Asian groundwater: a comprehensive review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 182:109362
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Pfadenhauer L, Burns J, Rohwer A, Rehfuess E 2016. Effectiveness of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water: a systematic review. Environ. Res. 147:525–36
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Fed. Provinc. Territ. Comm. Drink. Water 2016. Manganese in drinking water: document for public consultation Guideline, Health Canada Ottawa, Can.:
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Bhatnagar A, Sillanpää M. 2011. A review of emerging adsorbents for nitrate removal from water. Chem. Eng. J. 168:493–504
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    He Y, Xiang Y, Zhou Y, Yang Y, Zhang J et al. 2018. Selenium contamination, consequences and remediation techniques in water and soils: a review. Environ. Resour. 164:288–301
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Katsoyiannis I, Zouboulis A. 2013. Removal of uranium from contaminated drinking water: a mini review of available treatment methods. Desalin. Water Treat. 51:2915–25
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Pinto FS, Marques RC. 2017. Desalination projects economic feasibility: a standardization of cost determinants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78:904–15
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Al-Amshawee S, Yunus MYBM, Azoddein AAM, Hassell DG, Dakhil IH, Hasan HA 2020. Electrodialysis desalination for water and wastewater: a review. Chem. Eng. J. 380:122231
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Subramani A, Jacangelo J. 2015. Emerging desalination technologies for water treatment: a critical review. Water Res 75:164–87
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Tchounwou P, Yedjou CG, Udensi UK, Pacurari M, Stevens JJ et al. 2019. State of the science review of the health effects of inorganic arsenic: perspectives for future research. Environ. Toxicol. 34:188–202
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    World Health Organ 2011. Lead in drinking-water: background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality Backgr. Pap., World Health Organ Geneva:
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Boskabady M, Marefati N, Farkhondeh T, Shakeri F, Farshbaf A, Boskabady MH 2018. The effect of environmental lead exposure on human health and the contribution of inflammatory mechanisms, a review. Environ. Int. 120:404–20
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Ward M, Jones R, Brender J, de Kok T, Weyer P et al. 2018. Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:1557
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Fed. Provinc. Territ. Comm. Drink. Water 2014. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality: selenium Guideline, Health Canada Ottawa, Can.:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Waseem A, Ullah H, Rauf MK, Ahmad I 2015. Distribution of natural uranium in surface and groundwater resources: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:2391–423
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Shammi M, Rahman MM, Bondad S, Modrud-Doza M 2019. Impacts of salinity intrusion in community health: a review of experiences on drinking water sodium from coastal areas of Bangladesh. Healthcare 7:50
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Lei M, Zhang L, Lei J, Zong L, Li J et al. 2015. Overview of emerging contaminants and associated human health effects. BioMed Res. Int. 2015:404796
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    McLean JE, McNeill LS, Edwards MA, Parks JL 2012. Hexavalent chromium review. Part 1: Health effects, regulations, and analysis. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 104:E348–57
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Rahman SM, Kippler M, Tofail F, Bölte S, Hamadani JD, Vahter M 2017. Manganese in drinking water and cognitive abilities and behavior at 10 years of age: a prospective cohort study. Environ. Health Perspect. 125:057003
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Vinceti M, Crespi CM, Bonvicini F, Malagoli C, Ferrante M et al. 2013. The need for a reassessment of the safe upper limit of selenium in drinking water. Sci. Total Environ. 443:633–42
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    van Weert F, van der Gun J, Reckman J 2009. Global overview on saline groundwater occurrence and genesis Rep. 2009-1, Int. Groundw. Resour. Assess. Cent Delft, Neth.:
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Shukla S, Saxena A. 2018. Global status of nitrate contamination in groundwater: its occurrence, health impacts, and mitigation measures. Handbook of Environmental Materials Management CM Hussain 1–21 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    aus der Beek T, Weber FA, Bergmann A, Hickmann S, Ebert I et al. 2016. Pharmaceuticals in the environment—global occurrences and perspectives. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35:823–35
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Frank JJ, Poulakos AG, Tornero-Velez R, Xue J 2019. Systematic review and meta-analyses of lead (Pb) concentrations in environmental media (soil, dust, water, food, and air) reported in the United States from 1996 to 2016. Sci. Total Environ. 694:133489
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Rakib M, Sasaki J, Matsuda H, Fukunaga M 2019. Severe salinity contamination in drinking water and associated human health hazards increase migration risk in the southwestern coastal part of Bangladesh. J. Environ. Manag. 240:238–48
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Gavrilescu M, Demnerová K, Aamand J, Agathos S, Fava F 2015. Emerging pollutants in the environment: present and future challenges in biomonitoring, ecological risks and bioremediation. New Biotechnol 32:147–56
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Rahman M, Yanful E, Jasim S 2009. Occurrences of endocrine disrupting compounds and pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment and their removal from drinking water: challenges in the context of the developing world. Desalination 248:578–85
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Ahmad A, Bhattacharya P. 2019. Environmental arsenic in a changing world. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 8:169–71
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Chakraborti D, Rahman MM, Chatterjee A, Das D, Das B et al. 2016. Fate of over 480 million inhabitants living in arsenic and fluoride endemic Indian districts: magnitude, health, socio-economic effects and mitigation approaches. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 38:33–45
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Flanagan SV, Johnston RB, Zheng Y 2012. Arsenic in tube well water in Bangladesh: health and economic impacts and implications for arsenic mitigation. Bull. World Health Organ. 90:839–46
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Bundschuh J, Litter MI, Parvez F, Román-Ross G, Nicolli HB et al. 2012. One century of arsenic exposure in Latin America: a review of history and occurrence from 14 countries. Sci. Total Environ. 429:2–35
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Podgorski JE, Eqani SAMAS, Khanam T, Ullah R, Shen H, Berg M 2017. Extensive arsenic contamination in high-pH unconfined aquifers in the Indus Valley. Sci. Adv. 3:e1700935
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Murcott S. 2012. Arsenic Contamination in the World London: Int. Water Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Herrera MA, Martin-Alarcon DA, Gutiérrez M, Cuevas LR, Martn A et al. 2019. Co-occurrence, possible origin, and health-risk assessment of arsenic and fluoride in drinking water sources in Mexico: geographical data visualization. Sci. Total Environ. 698:134168
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Litter MI, Ingallinella AM, Olmos V, Savio M, Difeo G et al. 2019. Arsenic in Argentina: occurrence, human health, legislation and determination. Sci. Total Environ. 676:756–66
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Mueller B. 2017. Arsenic in groundwater in the southern lowlands of Nepal and its mitigation options: a review. Environ. Rev. 25:296–305
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Gonzalez Rodriguez B, Rietveld L, Longley A, van Halem D 2018. Arsenic contamination of rural community wells in Nicaragua: a review of two decades of experience. Sci. Total Environ. 657:1441–49
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Erickson M, Yager R, Kauffman L, Wilson J 2019. Drinking water quality in the glacial aquifer system, northern USA. Sci. Total Environ. 694:133735
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Bretzler A, Lalanne F, Nikiema J, Podgorski J, Pfenninger N et al. 2017. Groundwater arsenic contamination in Burkina Faso, West Africa: predicting and verifying regions at risk. Sci. Total Environ. 584/585:958–70
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Podgorski JE, Labhasetwar P, Saha D, Berg M 2018. Prediction modeling and mapping of groundwater fluoride contamination throughout India. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:9889–98
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Edmunds WM, Smedley PL. 2013. Fluoride in natural waters. Essentials of Medical Geology O Sellinus 311–36 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer. , Revis. ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Rango T, Kravchenko J, Atlaw B, McCornick PG, Jeuland M et al. 2012. Groundwater quality and its health impact: an assessment of dental fluorosis in rural inhabitants of the Main Ethiopian Rift. Environ. Int. 43:37–47
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Fewtrell L, Smith S, Kay D, Kay D, Bartram J 2006. An attempt to estimate the global burden of disease due to fluoride in drinking water. J. Water Health 4:533–42
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Olson E, Fedinick KP. 2016. What's in Your Water? Flint and Beyond New York: Nat. Resour. Defense Counc.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Frisbie SH, Mitchell EJ, Dustin H, Maynard DM, Sarkar B 2012. World Health Organization discontinues its drinking-water guideline for manganese. Environ. Health Perspect. 120:775–78
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Ying SC, Schaefer MV, Cock-Esteb A, Li J, Fendorf S 2017. Depth stratification leads to distinct zones of manganese and arsenic contaminated groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:8926–32
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Bhowmik A, Alamdar A, Katsoyiannis I, Shen H, Ali N et al. 2015. Mapping human health risks from exposure to trace metal contamination of drinking water sources in Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 538:306–16
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    van Geen A, Farooqi A, Kumar A, Khattak JA, Mushtaq N et al. 2018. Field testing of over 30,000 wells for arsenic across 400 villages of the Punjab plains of Pakistan and India: implications for prioritizing mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 654:1358–63
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Rasheed S, Siddique A, Sharmin T, Hasan A, Hanifi S et al. 2016. Salt intake and health risk in climate change vulnerable coastal Bangladesh: What role do beliefs and practices play. PLOS ONE 11:e0152783
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Kordas K, Ravenscroft J, Cao Y, McLean E 2018. Lead exposure in low and middle-income countries: Perspectives and lessons on patterns, injustices, economics, and politics. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:2351
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Hayes CR, Skubala ND. 2009. Is there still a problem with lead in drinking water in the European Union. J. Water Health 7:569–80
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Ul-Haq N, Arain M, Badar N, Rasheed M, Haque Z 2011. Drinking water: a major source of lead exposure in Karachi, Pakistan. East. Mediterr. Health J. 17:882–86
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Robinson R, Ho G, Mathew K 1992. Development of a reliable low-cost reverse osmosis desalination unit for remote communities. Desalination 86:9–26
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Wright NC, Winter AG. 2014. Justification for community-scale photovoltaic-powered electrodialysis desalination systems for inland rural villages in India. Desalination 352:82–91
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Kelkar P, Joshi V, Ansari M, Manivel U 2003. Performance evaluation of reverse osmosis desalination plants for rural water supply in developing country—a case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 89:243–61
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Elasaad H, Bilton A, Kelley L, Duayhe O, Dubowsky S 2015. Field evaluation of a community scale solar powered water purification technology: a case study of a remote Mexican community application. Desalination 375:71–80
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Marques de Carvalho PC, Riffel DB, Freire C, Montenegro FFD 2004. The Brazilian experience with a photovoltaic powered reverse osmosis plant. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 12:373–85
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Banat F, Qiblawey H, Al-Nasser Q 2009. Economic evaluation of a small RO unit powered by PV installed in the village of Hartha, Jordan. Desalin. Water Treat. 3:169–74
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Al-Wazzan Y, Safar M, Ebrahim S, Burney M, Mesri A 2002. Desalting of subsurface water using spiral-wound reverse osmosis (RO) system: technical and economic assessment. Desalination 143:21–28
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Al Suleimani Z, Nair VR 2000. Desalination by solar-powered reverse osmosis in a remote area of the Sultanate of Oman. Appl. Energy 65:367–80
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Schmidt SA, Gukelberger E, Hermann M, Fiedler F, Großmann B et al. 2016. Pilot study on arsenic removal from groundwater using a small-scale reverse osmosis system—towards sustainable drinking water production. J. Hazard. Mater. 318:671–78
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Elazhar F, Tahaikt M, Zouarhri A, Taky M, Hafsi M 2014. Defluoridation of Moroccan groundwater by nanofiltration and electrodialysis: performances and cost comparison. World Appl. Sci. J. 6:84450
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Brião VB, Cuenca F, Pandolfo A, Cadore Favaretto DP 2019. Is nanofiltration better than reverse osmosis for removal of fluoride from brackish waters to produce drinking water. Desalin. Water Treat. 158:20–32
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Choi JY, Lee T, Aleidan AB, Rahardianto A, Glickfeld M et al. 2019. On the feasibility of small communities wellhead RO treatment for nitrate removal and salinity reduction. J. Environ. Manag. 250:109487
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Giagnorio M, Steffenino S, Meucci L, Zanetti MC, Tiraferri A 2018. Design and performance of a nanofiltration plant for the removal of chromium aimed at the production of safe potable water. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 6:4467–75
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    He W, Amrose S, Wright N, Buonassisi T, Peters IM, Winter AG 2020. Field demonstration of a cost-optimized solar powered electrodialysis reversal desalination system. Desalination 476:114217
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Sahli MM, Tahaikt M, Achary I, Taky M, Elhanouni F et al. 2006. Technical optimization of nitrate removal for groundwater by ED using a pilot plant. Desalination 189:200–8
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Oren Y, Korngold E, Daltrophe N, Messalem R, Volkman Y et al. 2010. Pilot studies on high recovery BWRO-EDR for near zero liquid discharge approach. Desalination 261:321–30
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Wright NC. 2018. Design of cost-optimized village-scale electrodialysis systems for brackish water desalination PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Jadhav SV, Bringas E, Yadav GD, Rathod VK, Ortiz I, Marathe KV 2015. Arsenic and fluoride contaminated groundwaters: a review of current technologies for contaminants removal. J. Environ. Manag. 162:306–25
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Chamberlain JF, Sabatini DA. 2014. Water-supply options in arsenic-affected regions in Cambodia: targeting the bottom income quintiles. Sci. Total Environ. 488/489:521–31
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Sen Gupta B, Chatterjee S, Rott U, Kauffman H, Bandopadhyay A et al. 2009. A simple chemical free arsenic removal method for community water supply—a case study from West Bengal, India. Environ. Pollut. 157:3351–53
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Mondal S, Roy A, Mukherjee R, Mondal M, Karmakar S et al. 2017. A socio-economic study along with impact assessment for laterite based technology demonstration for arsenic mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 583:142–52
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Cui J, Du J, Yu S, Jing C, Chan T 2015. Groundwater arsenic removal using granular TiO2: integrated laboratory and field study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22:822434
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Shan H, Ma T, Wang Y, Zhao J, Han H et al. 2013. A cost-effective system for in-situ geological arsenic adsorption from groundwater. J. Contam. Hydrol. 154:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Sarkar S, Greenleaf JE, Gupta A, Ghosh D, Blaney LM et al. 2010. Evolution of community-based arsenic removal systems in remote villages in West Bengal, India: assessment of decade-long operation. Water Res 44:5813–22
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    German MS, Watkins TA, Chowdhury M, Chatterjee P, Rahman M et al. 2019. Evidence of economically sustainable village-scale microenterprises for arsenic remediation in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53:1078–86
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Stetter D, Dördelmann O, Overath H 2002. Pilot scale studies on the removal of trace metal contaminations in drinking water treatment using chelating ion-exchange resins. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2:25–35
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Piazzoli A, Antonelli M. 2018. Feasibility assessment of chromium removal from groundwater for drinking purposes by sorption on granular activated carbon and strong base anion exchange. Water Air Soil Pollut 229:193
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Plummer S, Gorman C, Henrie T, Shimabuku K, Thompson R, Seidel C 2018. Optimization of strong-base anion exchange O and M costs for hexavalent chromium treatment. Water Res 139:420–33
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Blute N, Wu X, Porter K, Imamura G, McGuire M 2013. Hexavalent chromium removal Res. Proj. Rep., Dep. Public Health Sacramento, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Rubel F. 2014. Design Manual: Removal of Fluoride from Drinking Water Supplies by Activated Alumina Washington, DC: Environ. Prot. Agency
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Tomlinson M, Bommarito P, George A, Yelton S, Cable P et al. 2019. Assessment of inorganic contamination of private wells and demonstration of effective filter-based reduction: a pilot-study in Stokes County, North Carolina. Environ. Res. 177:108618
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Pham TT, Nguyen VA, Van der Bruggen B 2013. Pilot-scale evaluation of GAC adsorption using low-cost, high-performance materials for removal of pesticides and organic matter in drinking water production. J. Environ. Eng. 139:958–65
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    van Halem D, Heijman S, Amy G, van Dijk J 2009. Subsurface arsenic removal for small-scale application in developing countries. Desalination 248:241–48
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    García J, Rousseau DPL, Morató J, Lesage E, Matamoros V, Bayona JM 2010. Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:561–661
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Quesada HB, Baptista ATA, Cusioli LF, Seibert D, de Oliveira Bezerra C, Bergamasco R 2019. Surface water pollution by pharmaceuticals and an alternative of removal by low-cost adsorbents: a review. Chemosphere 222:766–80
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Bordoloi S, Nath SK, Gogoi S, Dutta RK 2013. Arsenic and iron removal from groundwater by oxidation-coagulation at optimized pH: laboratory and field studies. J. Hazard. Mater. 260:618–26
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Moussa DT, El-Naas MH, Nasser M, Al-Marri MJ 2017. A comprehensive review of electrocoagulation for water treatment: potentials and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 186:24–41
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Kobya M, Soltani RDC, Omwene PI, Khataee A 2020. A review on decontamination of arsenic-contained water by electrocoagulation: reactor configurations and operating cost along with removal mechanisms. Environ. Technol. Innov. 17:100519
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Amrose S, Gadgil A, Srinivasan V, Kowolik K, Muller M et al. 2013. Arsenic removal from groundwater using iron electrocoagulation: effect of charge dosage rate. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 48:1019–30
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Amrose S, Bandaru S, Delaire C, van Genuchten C, Dutta A et al. 2014. Electro-chemical arsenic remediation: field trials in West Bengal. Sci. Total Environ. 488/489:539–46
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Wan W, Pepping TJ, Banerji T, Chaudhari S, Giammar DE 2011. Effects of water chemistry on arsenic removal from drinking water by electrocoagulation. Water Res 45:384–92
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Hernandez D, Boden K, Paul P, Bandaru S, Mypati S et al. 2019. Strategies for successful field deployment in a resource-poor region: arsenic remediation technology for drinking water. Dev. Eng. 4:100045
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Andey S, Kumar Labhasetwar P, Khadse G, Gwala P, Deshmukh P 2013. Performance evaluation of solar power based electrolytic defluoridation plants in India. Int. J. Water Resour. Arid Environ. 2:139–45
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Emamjomeh M, Sivakumar M. 2009. Fluoride removal by a continuous flow electrocoagulation reactor. J. Environ. Manag. 90:1204–12
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Miklos DB, Hartl R, Michel P, Linden KG, Drewes JE, Hübner U 2018. UV/H2O2 process stability and pilot-scale validation for trace organic chemical removal from wastewater treatment plant effluents. Water Res 136:169–79
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Miralles-Cuevas S, Darowna D, Wanag A, Mozia S, Malato S, Oller I 2017. Comparison of UV/H2O2, UV/S2O2−8, solar/Fe(II)/H2O2 and solar/Fe(II)/S2O2−8 at pilot plant scale for the elimination of micro-contaminants in natural water: an economic assessment. Chem. Eng. J. 310:514–24
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Plakas KV, Sarasidis VC, Patsios SI, Lambropoulou DA, Karabelas AJ 2016. Novel pilot scale continuous photocatalytic membrane reactor for removal of organic micropollutants from water. Chem. Eng. J. 304:335–43
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Fenoll J, Flores P, Hellín P, Martínez CM, Navarro S 2012. Photodegradation of eight miscellaneous pesticides in drinking water after treatment with semiconductor materials under sunlight at pilot plant scale. Chem. Eng. J. 204–206:54–64
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Cid L, Grande M, Acosta E, Ginzberg B 2012. Removal of Cr(VI) and humic acid by heterogeneous photocatalysis in a laboratory reactor and a pilot reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51:9468–74
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Jensen VB, Darby JL, Seidel C, Gorman C 2014. Nitrate in potable water supplies: alternative management strategies. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:2203–86
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Benner J, Helbling D, Kohler H, Wittebol J, Kaiser E et al. 2013. Is biological treatment a viable alternative for micropollutant removal in drinking water treatment processes. Water Res 47:5955–76
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Cheng Q, Huang Y, Nengzi L, Liu J, Zhang J 2019. Performance and microbial community profiles in pilot-scale biofilter for ammonia, iron and manganese removal at different dissolved oxygen concentrations. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35:43
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Han M, Zhao Zw, Gao W, Cui Fy 2013. Study on the factors affecting simultaneous removal of ammonia and manganese by pilot-scale biological aerated filter (BAF) for drinking water pre-treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 145:17–24
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Pompei C, Ciric L, Canales M, Karu K, Vieira E, Campos L 2017. Influence of PPCPs on the performance of intermittently operated slow sand filters for household water purification. Sci. Total Environ. 581–582:174–85
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Nitzsche KS, Lan VM, Trang PTK, Viet PH, Berg M et al. 2015. Arsenic removal from drinking water by a household sand filter in Vietnam—effect of filter usage practices on arsenic removal efficiency and microbiological water quality. Sci. Total Environ. 502:526–36
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Williams PJ, Botes E, Maleke MM, Ojo A, DeFlaun MF et al. 2014. Effective bioreduction of hexavalent chromium–contaminated water in fixed-film bioreactors. Water SA 40:549–54
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Rezvani F, Sarrafzadeh M, Ebrahimi S, Oh H 2019. Nitrate removal from drinking water with a focus on biological methods: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 26:1124–41
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Mohseni-Bandpi A, Elliott D. 1998. Groundwater denitrification with alternative carbon sources. Water Sci. Technol. 38:237–43
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Foster R, Amos W, Eby S 2005. Ten years of solar distillation application along the US–Mexico border Paper presented at Solar World Congr., Int. Solar Energy Soc., Orlando, FL, Aug. 11
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Jasrotia S, Kansal A, Kishore V 2013. Application of solar energy for water supply and sanitation in arsenic affected rural areas: a study for Kaudikasa village, India.. J. Clean. Prod. 60:102–6
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Agrawal A, Rana R. 2019. Theoretical and experimental performance evaluation of single-slope single-basin solar still with multiple V-shaped floating wicks. Heliyon 5:e01525
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    Hoque A, Abir AH, Shourov KP 2019. Solar still of saline water desalination for low-income coastal areas. Appl. Water Sci. 9:104
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Bhattacharyya A. 2013. Solar stills for desalination of water in rural households. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. 2:21–30
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Sivakumar V, Ganapathy Sundaram E 2013. Improvement techniques of solar still efficiency: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28:246–64
    [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    Nguyen TV, Loganathan P, Vigneswaran S, Krupanidhi S, Pham TTN, Ngo HH 2014. Arsenic waste from water treatment systems: characteristics, treatments and its disposal. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 14:939–50
    [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    Huq SI, Nesa L, Chowdhury M, Joardar J 2011. Disposal of arsenic filter sludge in soil and its consequences. Environ. Sci. Eng. 5:165–76
    [Google Scholar]
  152. 152. 
    Etmannski T, Darton R. 2014. A methodology for the sustainability assessment of arsenic mitigation technology for drinking water. Sci. Total Environ. 488–489:505–11
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    deLemos J, Bostick B, Renshaw C, Stürup S, Feng X 2006. Landfill-stimulated iron reduction and arsenic release at the Coakley Superfund Site (NH). Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:67–73
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 154. 
    Thakur B, Gupta V. 2019. Valuing health damages due to groundwater arsenic contamination in Bihar, India. Econ. Hum. Biol. 35:123–32
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 155. 
    Sarmah S, Saikia J, Bordoloi DK, Kalita PJ, Bora JJ, Goswamee RL 2018. Immobilization of fluoride in cement clinkers using hydroxyl-alumina modified paddy husk ash based adsorbent. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 93:533–40
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 156. 
    Ismail Z, AbdelKareem H. 2015. Sustainable approach for recycling waste lamb and chicken bones for fluoride removal from water followed by reusing fluoride-bearing waste in concrete. Waste Manag 45:66–75
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 157. 
    Roy A, van Genuchten CM, Mookherjee I, Debsarkar A, Dutta A 2019. Concrete stabilization of arsenic-bearing iron sludge generated from an electrochemical arsenic remediation plant. J. Environ. Manag. 233:141–50
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 158. 
    Bhattacharya A, Sarani C, Roy A, Karthik D, Singh A et al. 2019. An analysis of arsenic contamination in the groundwater of India, Bangladesh and Nepal with a special focus on the stabilisation of arsenic-laden sludge from arsenic filters. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 24:1–34
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 159. 
    Ghosh D, Sarkar S, Sengupta AK, Gupta A 2014. Investigation on the long-term storage and fate of arsenic obtained as a treatment residual: a case study. J. Hazard. Mater. 271:302–10
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 160. 
    Giwa A, Dufour V, Marzooqi FA, Kaabi MA, Hasan SW 2017. Brine management methods: recent innovations and current status. Desalination 407:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 161. 
    Williams RG, Follows MJ. 2011. Ocean Dynamics and the Carbon Cycle: Principles and Mechanisms Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 162. 
    Am. Water Works Assoc 1999. M46 Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Denver, CO: Am. Water Works Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  163. 163. 
    Rodríguez FA, Santiago DE, Franquiz Suárez N, Ortega Méndez JA, Veza JM 2012. Comparison of evaporation rates for seawater and brine from reverse osmosis in traditional salt works: empirical correlations. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 12:234–40
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    Ladewig B, Asquith B. 2011. Desalination Concentrate Management Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  165. 165. 
    Ramanujan D, Wright N, Truffaut S, von Medeazza G, Winter A 2017. Environmental sustainability analysis of photovoltaic-powered electrodialysis reversal brackish water desalination for potable water production in the Gaza Strip Paper presented at Int. Desalin. Assoc. World Congr São Paulo, Braz.:
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Thuy BT, Dao AD, Han M, Nguyen DC, Nguyen VA et al. 2019. Rainwater for drinking in Vietnam: barriers and strategies. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. 68:585–94
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    Jha MK, Dahal KR, Shrestha S 2019. A review on sustainability of rainwater harvesting with especial reference to Nepal. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Stud. 2:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Islam A, Sakakibara H, Karim M, Sekine M et al. 2013. Potable water scarcity: options and issues in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. J. Water Health 11:532–42
    [Google Scholar]
  169. 169. 
    Al-Batsh N, Al-Khatib I, Ghannam S, Anayah F, Jodeh S et al. 2019. Assessment of rainwater harvesting systems in poor rural communities: a case study from Yatta Area, Palestine. Water 11:585
    [Google Scholar]
  170. 170. 
    Quaghebeur W, Mulhern RE, Ronsse S, Heylen S, Blommaert H et al. 2019. Arsenic contamination in rainwater harvesting tanks around Lake Poopó in Oruro, Bolivia: an unrecognized health risk. Sci. Total Environ. 688:224–30
    [Google Scholar]
  171. 171. 
    Islam M, Akber M, Rahman M, Islam M, Kabir M 2019. Evaluation of harvested rainwater quality at primary schools of southwest coastal Bangladesh. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191:80
    [Google Scholar]
  172. 172. 
    Bashar MZI, Karim MR, Imteaz MA 2018. Reliability and economic analysis of urban rainwater harvesting: a comparative study within six major cities of Bangladesh. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 133:146–54
    [Google Scholar]
  173. 173. 
    Howard G, Ahmed MF, Shamsuddin AJ, Mahmud SG, Deere D 2006. Risk assessment of arsenic mitigation options in Bangladesh. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 24:346
    [Google Scholar]
  174. 174. 
    Naser A, Martorell R, Narayan K, Clasen T 2017. First do no harm: the need to explore potential adverse health implications of drinking rainwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:5865–66
    [Google Scholar]
  175. 175. 
    Fendorf S, Michael HA, Van Geen A 2010. Spatial and temporal variations of groundwater arsenic in South and Southeast Asia. Science 238:1123–27
    [Google Scholar]
  176. 176. 
    Jamil NB, Feng H, Ahmed KM, Choudhury I, Barnwal P, van Geen A 2019. Effectiveness of different approaches to arsenic mitigation over 18 years in Araihazar, Bangladesh: implications for national policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53:5596–604
    [Google Scholar]
  177. 177. 
    Madajewicz M, Pfaff A, Van Geen A, Graziano J, Hussein I et al. 2007. Can information alone change behavior? Response to arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh. J. Dev. Econ. 84:731–54
    [Google Scholar]
  178. 178. 
    World Health Organ./UNICEF Jt. Monit. Programme Water Supply Sanit 2008. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation Geneva/New York: World Health Organ./UNICEF
    [Google Scholar]
  179. 179. 
    Caretta MA, Andersson L. 2017. Arsenic poisoning in rural Bangladesh: an intersectional analysis of impacts on women. wH2O 5:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  180. 180. 
    Rahman M, Rahman A, Khan M, Renzaho A 2018. Human health risks and socio-economic perspectives of arsenic exposure in Bangladesh: a scoping review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 150:335–43
    [Google Scholar]
  181. 181. 
    Buchmann N, Field EM, Glennerster R, Hussam RN 2019. Throwing the baby out with the drinking water: unintended consequences of arsenic mitigation efforts in Bangladesh NBER Work. Pap 25729
    [Google Scholar]
  182. 182. 
    McGavisk E, Roberson JA, Seidel C 2013. Using community economics to compare arsenic compliance and noncompliance. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 105:E115–26
    [Google Scholar]
  183. 183. 
    Inauen J, Hossain MM, Johnston RB, Mosler HJ 2013. Acceptance and use of eight arsenic-safe drinking water options in Bangladesh. PLOS ONE 8:e53640
    [Google Scholar]
  184. 184. 
    Visoottiviseth P, Ahmed F. 2008. Technology for remediation and disposal of arsenic. Rev. Environ. Contam. 197:77–128
    [Google Scholar]
  185. 185. 
    Yang JS, Yuan DX, Weng TP 2010. Pilot study of drinking water treatment with GAC, O3/BAC and membrane processes in Kinmen Island, Taiwan. Desalination 263:271–78
    [Google Scholar]
  186. 186. 
    Bilton AM, Wiesman R, Arif A, Zubair SM, Dubowsky S 2011. On the feasibility of community-scale photovoltaic-powered reverse osmosis desalination systems for remote locations. Renew. Energy 36:3246–56
    [Google Scholar]
  187. 187. 
    Garg M. 2019. Renewable energy-powered membrane technology: cost analysis and energy consumption. Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes A Basile, A Cassano, A Figolipp 85–110 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  188. 188. 
    Ranjan K, Kaushik S. 2013. Economic feasibility evaluation of solar distillation systems based on the equivalent cost of environmental degradation and high-grade energy savings. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 11:8–15
    [Google Scholar]
  189. 189. 
    Nayar KG, Wright NC, Thiel GP, Winter AG, Lienhard JH 2015. Energy requirements of alternative technologies for desalinating groundwater for irrigation. Proceedings of the International Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, pap. IDAWC15-Nayar-b Cambridge, MA: DSpace@MIT
    [Google Scholar]
  190. 190. 
    Ahdab YD, Thiel GP, Bohlke JK, Stanton J, Lienhard JH 2018. Minimum energy requirements for desalination of brackish groundwater in the United States with comparison to international datasets. Water Res 141:387–404
    [Google Scholar]
  191. 191. 
    Fan Y, Li H, Miguez-Macho G 2013. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339:940–43
    [Google Scholar]
  192. 192. 
    Frey MM, Owen DM, Chowdhury ZK, Raucher RS, Edwards MA 1998. Cost to utilities of a lower MCL for arsenic. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 90:89–102
    [Google Scholar]
  193. 193. 
    Chen WH, Erker BT, Kanematsu M, Darby JL 2010. Disposal of arsenic-laden adsorptive media: economic analysis for California. J. Environ. Eng. 136:1082–88
    [Google Scholar]
  194. 194. 
    Ahmed M, Shayya WH, Hoey D, Al-Handaly J 2001. Brine disposal from reverse osmosis desalination plants in Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Desalination 133:135–47
    [Google Scholar]
  195. 195. 
    Welle PD, Medellín-Azuara J, Viers JH, Mauter MS 2017. Economic and policy drivers of agricultural water desalination in California's Central Valley. Agric. Water Manag. 194:192–203
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-105152
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-105152
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error