Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 4 Summary of costs and flow rates for coagulation, co-precipitation and filtration technologies

From: Are interventions to reduce the impact of arsenic contamination of groundwater on human health in developing countries effective? A systematic review

Author Intervention Household or community Flow L/hr Capital cost as Aus$ Operational cost as Aus$
BAMWSP (2001), Sutherland (2001), Sutherland (2002) DPHE/Danida two bucket system Household 4.3 (max 43–52 L in 12 hrs) Not reported Not reported
Hoque (2000) Alum treatment of contaminated water Unclear Not reported Not reported Not reported
BAMWSP (2001), Sutherland (2001), Sutherland (2002) Stevens Institute technology Unclear 18 (max 211 L in 12 hrs) Not reported Not reported
Meng (2001) Household co-precipitation and filtration system Household 90 (reduced to 24 after 10 buckets) (1.5 L/min) Not reported 8/year/family
Amiri (2010) STAR Unclear 16 L – mixed and stand 10–15 min Not reported Not reported
Amiri (2010) CIWPL Unclear 20 L water – stirred for 2 mins and stand for 1 hour. Not reported Not reported
Norton (2009) Procter & Gamble flocculant-disinfectant powder Household 10 L/sachet. Stir 5 min and settle 5 min Not reported Not reported
Cheng (2004) Household arsenic removal system Household 30-120 (0.5-2.0 L/min) Not reported Not reported
Ali (2001) Ferric chloride coagulation Household 60-120 (1–2 L/min) 80 Chemicals −0.20
Hossain (2005) Chlorinating agent (BP) + ferric alum Community 1000 1512 periodic chemical charges (assume 2002 – study 2001–2003) Not reported