Maternal and Child Health Clinic Las Mercedes, Honduras

1. Maternal and Child Health ClinicLas Mercedes, Honduras Preliminary Design (30%) January 27, 2009 Janelle Barth, Stephanie Chang, Walter Li, Greer Mackebee

3. road: church side field side

4. Structural Design

5. Weighting Criteria • Constructability: Is it easy to build? Will we need more materials? Bricks, wood, or tin? Is it easy to access/install the solar panel? • Access to water source: How much piping (and labor) will be needed to obtain fresh water • Access to sewage disposal: How much piping (and labor) will be needed to dispose of sewage properly? Will it even be possible to dispose of it properly from location of kitchen? • Ventilation: Can air flow easily in AND out of the building? Are there obstructions?

6. Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) in the Las Mercedes Primary school Adobe bricks

7. Structural Design Decision Matrix

8. Decisions Made So Far • Optimal location: lowest area on site • slope change is minimal • needs for clinic limit our choices of location (because of size) • Optimal size, dimensions: 30’x70’ • fits necessary lodging, kitchen, medical needs • rectangle allows for more sunlight, ventilation • fits topographical lines more appropriately

11. Farmer’s crops right next to clinic site

13. Next Steps • Ventilation system to prevent spread of airborne disease: • Wind tunnel? • Fans in windows • Screen in windows

14. Next Steps • Internal structure (layout of rooms) • Preferably at least one large room for serving as a community meeting-place or treating large groups of people • Bedroom for full-year nurse staffer • Office with laptops for keeping records, refrigerator for short-term storage of vaccines/medications • Smaller exam rooms (1-2?) for private treatment or curtain/other dividers for the large room • Dormitory for volunteers (8 bunk beds?) • Waiting room (?) • Simple “kitchen” with smoke-diverting wood-burning stove (?)

15. Water Systems

16. Water Path Water from stream (in the tank) Physical Filter Disinfection / Treatment Back into the Environment Waste Removal System Clinic Use Graywater Blackwater Latrine Waste

18. Two Areas of Interest • Water Purification • Needs to be effective • Filter particles • Treat water for diseases • Should be low cost • Should be possible to construct with locally available materials • Needs to be easy to maintain • Waste Management • Must effectively contain harmful materials • Should be low maintenance • Cannot require any unavailable technologies • Soil permeability can be found through percolation

19. Water Purification System

20. Ultraviolet Disinfection • Equipment: UV bulb, quartz sleeve • Effectiveness: 1-log reduction of Giardia, 4-log reduction of viruses, effective for Cryptosporidium • Cost: US$ 80-300 • Lifetime: bulb lasts 10 to 12 months • Maintenance: replace bulbs; check quartz sleeve every 6 months; monitor for scaling and overall effectiveness

21. Ultraviolet Disinfection • Pros: • Capable of disinfecting water faster than chlorine • No cumbersome retention tanks or potentially harmful materials • Cost effective • No residual effect (change in water taste, odor, pH, or conductivity) • “Operator friendly” • Cons: • Doesn’t remove dissolved organics, inorganic compounds, or particles in the water • Needs electricity • Bulb needs to be replaced every 10-12 months; old bulbs need proper disposal • Replacement of parts • Bulbs – every 10-12 months (need proper disposal) • Ballast – 10 years • Quartz sleeve – 5 years • More difficult equipment repair and regular cleaning required

22. UV Disinfection • Factors that reduce UV disinfection effectiveness include: • Iron manganese • Total dissolved solids (TDS) • Turbidity (inability of light to travel through water) • Suspended solids • May need to be used in conjunction with another filtration system (possibly a membrane or sand-gravel system)

23. Chlorine • Pros: • Can be cheap (only need tablets, pump, tank for water storage, filter) • Very effective at fighting E. coli • Somewhat easy to maintain • Electricity not necessarily required • Upstream treatment possible for school and Regino’s house because of residual • Cons: • Chemical dosing hard to regulate • Possible to overdose the water • Would require another type of purification to remove excess chlorine • Pressures must be dealt with (might require a separate pump system) • Unreliable in fighting Giardia • Undesirable taste • Requires purchase of chlorine

24. Evaluation of Treatment Options

25. Waste System

26. Percolation

27. Percolation

29. Septic Tank / Aqua Privy • Pros: • Most efficient • Water tight • Very sanitary if functioning properly • Cons: • Sludge from tank must be emptied mechanically every 1 to 5 years • Needs lots of area to function • Uses a high volume of water per flush • Regular maintenance unavailable

30. Offset Single Pit Toilet • Pros: • Versatile • Inexpensive to construct and maintain (only has to be cleaned daily with some water and disinfectant) • Sludge can be used as fertilizer after being buried • Cons: • If not cleaned properly, risk of disease and groundwater contamination • Must be reconstructed annually in a different location • Possible for the pipe (U-trap) to become blocked, rendering the whole system unusable • Toilet paper and other bulky materials cannot be used • Must be 6 meters away from building; cannot be indoor

31. Offset Double Pit Toilet • Pros: • Very versatile • Safer pit sludge • Inexpensive (US$ 75-212) • Sludge can be used as a fertilizer • No need for yearly reconstruction (while one pit is full and decomposing, the other pit is in use) • Water Seal • Cons: • Similar to those for single pit

32. Offset Double Pit Toilet

34. Compost Latrine • Pros: • Produces fertilizer • Vaults don’t have to be moved (like in the Offset Double Pit Latrine) • Capable of decomposing most household waste, also • Easy to install • Cons: • More expensive than Pour-Flush systems • Grass, weeds, or sawdust must be added daily to reduce odor • Must be dosed with disinfectant daily • Floor must be scrubbed daily

35. Simple Pit Latrine • Pros: • Very cheap • Very easy to build • Cons: • Not sustainable (must be moved to a new site after a year) • Bad odor • Uncomfortable • No seal

36. Evaluation of Waste Disposal Options

37. Moving Forward: Concerns • Location? • The waste removal system needs enough water to keep “things” moving • Proximity to agriculture / water • Amount of power necessary for the UV filtration system • Reasons for pit latrine failure: • Soil incapable of absorbing water • High water table • Pit collapse • No water available • Housing structure damaged • Improper maintenance

41. Photovoltaic Energy System

42. Determining System Capacity • Depends on appliance load • Known appliances • Electric lighting • 2-3 laptops • Refrigerator (?) for vaccines, medicines • Electric fan (?) • Possibly UV water purification system • Be prepared for extra appliances (medical equipment?)

43. Appliance Evaluation Criteria • Cost – how expensive? • Performance – can it reliably maintain a proper temperature for vaccine/medication/diagnostic sample storage? • Power consumption – how much power does it draw? • Availability – can we get how much will it from in-country or regionally at about the same cost? • Durability – how long will it last? (may not be an important criterion)

45. Next Steps • Rate appliances on other criteria; reevaluate decisions • Add other appliance types • Lighting • UV purification • Fan

46. Next Steps • Confirming necessary/desired appliances with Dr. Clements (by 2/3) • Calculate system component specifications (by 2/10) • Crystalline silicon PV panels (cheapest, but not necessarily most efficient) • Charge controller • Deep-cycle battery • Inverter (conversion from DC to AC for laptops) • Check calculations with Dr. Paul Klenk of the ECE department • Preliminary mounting design (by 2/17) • Identify parts and suppliers (by 2/24) • Work out transportation/shipping logistics (by 3/10) • Estimate costs (by 2/24) • Final system design and possible prototype/testing (by 3/31)