Premium
COST EFFECTIVE ARSENIC REDUCTIONS IN PRIVATE WELL WATER IN MAINE 1
Author(s) -
SargentMichaud Jessica,
Boyle Kevin J.,
Smith Andrew E.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb05297.x
Subject(s) - gallon (us) , arsenic , environmental science , cost effectiveness , bottled water , cost–benefit analysis , waste management , environmental engineering , toxicology , chemistry , operations management , engineering , ecology , organic chemistry , biology
This study was undertaken to investigate the cost effectiveness of selected arsenic avoidance methods. Annual costs of reverse osmosis (RO), activated alumina (AA), bottled water, and rented and purchased water coolers for various household sizes in Maine were compared. Relative ranking of systems shows that RO ($411 annually) is the most cost effective, followed by AA ($518) and one‐gallon jugs of water ($321 to $1,285), respectively, for households larger than one person. One‐gallon jugs ($321) followed by 2.5‐gallon jugs ($358) of water were found to be the most cost effective for households of one person or for households with arsenic III concentrations of 0.02 to 0.06 mg/L and arsenic V concentrations of 0.08 to 1.0 mg/L. Point‐of‐entry systems and water coolers were not found to be cost effective under any of the study's conditions. The research reported here will help states make more definitive treatment recommendations to households regarding the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment systems to reduce arsenic concentrations below 0.01 mg/L. While arsenic removal technologies are improving, which enhances removal rates and reduces costs, the major insights from this analysis appear to be reinforced by technological improvements.