University of Colorado Research Project Review Panel Conference Call December 2, 2009

1. Evaluation of Enhanced Ceramic Water Filtration (ECWF) for Microbial and Chemical Contaminant Removal for Households in Developing Countries University of Colorado Research Project Review Panel Conference Call December 2, 2009

2. Introductions Research Team: • Chris Schulz, CDM • Angela Bielefeldt, CU • Scott Summers, CU • Lauren Panasewicz, CU Review Panel: • Ned Breslin, WFP • Susan Murcott, MIT • Daniele Lantagne, CDC • Robyn Wilmouth, PATH • Mark Sobsey, UNC

3. Agenda • Project Overview (PPT Presentation) • ECWF Technology – Features, Benefits and Drawbacks • CU Research Plan – Scope and Schedule • Collaboration with HWTS Networks and Field Studies • Project Review Panel Communications

4. Review Panel Discussion Questions • What are the benefits and limitations of ECWF system? • Does the CU research plan meet accepted standards for demonstrating treatment performance? • What types of field studies should be considered to demonstrate sustainability of ECWF system? • What grant funding options are available to complete CU research and follow-on field studies? • Are there opportunities to perform ECWF field testing with ongoing WFP, PATH and NGO projects? • Should a CWF research network be established to coordinate research activities and share information?

5. Estimated mean risk of illness by HWTS type and study duration Ceramic Water Filters “With the current available evidence, ceramic filters are the most effective form of HWTS in the long-term; disinfection-only interventions appear to have poor if any long-term public health benefit.” Paul Hunter School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, ES&T, 2009 Hunter, P.A., ES&T, 2008

6. Benefits of Standard CWF System • Proven reduction of bacteria and protozoa • Proven reduction of diarrheal disease • Acceptability to users • Produces clear, cooler filtered water • No chemicals or chlorine taste • Affordable, one-time cost

7. Drawbacks of Standard CWF System • Lower effectiveness against viruses • Does not remove arsenic, fluoride or nitrite • Potential for filtered water recontamination • Potential for filter breakage • Filter must be cleaned/scrubbed • Low flowrate (1-2 L/hr) and limited raw water storage (8-10 L) • Multiple refills to meet family needs • Often unattractive appearance

8. Re-engineering the RDI-Cambodia CWF System

9. Potential Additional Benefits of Enhanced CWF System • Higher flowrate (6-8 L/hr) and more raw water storage (20 L) • Effective removal of viruses, arsenic, fluoride, nitrate and T&O • Multiple barrier treatment (3 stages) • Reduced risk of stagnant water and recontamination • Reduced risk of filter breakage • Reduced filter cleaning/scrubbing • Attractive, appealing design • Upgradable option for CWF

10. Drawbacks of Enhanced CWF System • Higher unit cost • Annual disposal and replacement of purity pack • Taller and heavier unit • Initial installation is more complicated • Uncertain tradeoff between CWF element scrubbing and clogged purity pack cleaning

11. Cost Breakdown for RDI-Cambodia CWF and ECWF Systems

12. CDM-Funded ECWF Research Project • Objective: Evaluate ECWF for chemical and microbial contaminant removal at higher filtration loading rates • Research Approach: • Phase 1: Evaluate enhanced hydraulic capacity • Side-by-side round-robin testing of CWF, ECWF, ECWF w/ PP • Hydraulic performance testing using fill and draw method • Phase 2: Evaluate extended treatment capacity • Selection of optimal purity pack media (ZVI/sand blend) using RSSCTs • Long-term contaminant break-through testing using continuous overflow arrangement • TCLP testing for spent purity pack leaching