Emerging mitigation needs and sustainable options for solving the arsenic problems of rural and isolated urban areas in Latin America – A critical analysis

J. BUNDSCHUH; M.I. LITTER; V. CIMINELLI; M.E. MORGADA; L. CORNEJO; S. GARRIDO HOYOS; J. HOINKIS; M.T. ALARCÓN-HERRERA; M.A. ARMIENTA; P. BHATTACHARYA

WATER RESEARCH

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD

Lugar: Oxford; Año: 2010

0043-1354

In this work, current information about the contamination of ground- and surface-water resources by arsenic from geogenic sources in Latin America is presented together with possible emerging mitigation solutions. The problem is of the same order of magnitude as other world regions, such as SE Asia, but it is often not described in English. Despite the studies undertaken by numerous local researchers, and the identification of proven treatment methods for the specific water conditions encountered, no technologies have been commercialized due to a current lack of funding and technical assistance. Emerging, low-cost technologies to mitigate the problem of arsenic in drinking water resources that are suitable for rural and urban areas lacking centralized water supplies have been evaluated. The technologies generally use simple and low-cost equipment that can easily be handled and maintained by the local population. Experiences comprise (i) coagulation/filtration with iron and aluminum salts, scaled-down for small community- and household-scale-applications, (ii) adsorption techniques using low-cost arsenic sorbents, such as geological materials (clays, laterites, soils, limestones), natural organic-based sorbents (natural biomass), and synthetic materials. TiO2-heterogeneous photocatalysis and zerovalent iron, especially using nanoscale particles, appear to be promising emergent technologies. Another promising innovative method for rural communities is the use of constructed wetlands using native perennial plants for arsenic rhizofiltration. Small-scale simple reverse osmosis equipment (which can be powered by wind or solar energy) that is suitable for small communities can also be utilized. The individual benefits of the different methods have been evaluated in terms of (i) size of the treatment device, (ii) arsenic concentration and distribution of species, chemical composition and grade of mineralization in the raw water, (iii) guidelines for the remaining As concentration, (iv) economical constrains, (v) complexity of installation and maintenance, and infrastructure constraints (e.g. electricity needs).