The Omitted Social Aspect of Low-Cost Adsorbents in Developing Nations

When it comes to countries with little to no access to clean drinking water, treatment of wastewater and its reuse can pave the way. The Earth’s system is one of energy flows and balances and within it the water cycle rests as a means to maintain that balance. One of the important aspects of the water cycle pertains to the production of wastewater in almost every aspect along the way. This wastewater needs collection, and treatment before being used for other purposes. The issue however is further aggravated due to an increase and prominence of water pollutants. To address this issue of wastewater treatment in developing nations, a wide range of treatment methods are needed that are not only technologically or economically feasible but also culturally and socially acceptable. In the recent years, adsorption has been hailed as both a technologically viable and economically stable option when it comes to producing high quality water with pollutant concentrations under the legal limits for discharge waters (De Gisi et al, 2016).

When looking at the issue at hand, it is astonishing to note that of the total wastewater generated in the world, developing nations are only able to treat 30% or less (UNU-INWEH, 2019). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Target 6.3) “sets out to improve water quality by reducing pollution, minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, and halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and increasing [its] recycling and safe reuse globally” (United Nations, n. d.). Even if governments across the world rally up all their resources and motivation to reach the target, there is a need for technologically viable and socially acceptable technologies in developing nations. Another factor prompting a need for low-cost technological advancements in the wastewater treatment realm is the freshwater scarcity in developing nations causing most countries to rely on wastewater for agriculture (Mohammed et al., 2017). Consequently, this is concerning due to the many health related issues people are facing everyday in these nations. It is certainly not helpful when wastewater treatment technologies have high O&M costs. This is where adsorbents have been gaining momentum wherein the technology has been used to separate, purify, and detoxify wastewater on an industrial level (Crini, Lichtfouse and Morin-Crini, 2019). In broader terms, adsorption is the process which allows purification, decolouration, and removal of harmful products from liquid solutions and gas mixtures (Crini et al., 2019).

Among the many techniques of contaminant removal, activated carbon is the preferred choice to remove different types of contaminants (Crini et al., 2019). Their capacity to adsorb contaminants allow for an output that is of adequate quality. Not only do they adsorb organic matter, but they also help reduce the load in secondary and tertiary treatment and are good in terms of removal of many man-made pollutants, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, etc. (Crini et al., 2019). One of the major advantages pertaining to using activated carbon is the fact that there are no by-products produced that are harmful to environmental and human health (Crini et al., 2019). Activated carbon usage along with ultrafiltration membrane can help in obtaining a cost-effective technology (Crini et al., 2019). Although they have been used for a long time, their development is still being pursued due to an increase in demand of clean water (Crini et al., 2019). Certain disadvantages pertaining to the use of activated carbon technology include but are not limited to the fact that activated carbon is quite expensive (Crini et al., 2019). Varying qualities of carbon exist and although their absorbing power is effective, their rapid saturation and regeneration are questionable concepts (Crini et al., 2019). In a developing nation, particularly, small or medium scale treatment plants cannot employ such treatment due to the high costs. For this, there are many different types of absorbents that can be used in place of activated carbon. The need is to piece out the ones that are readily available or are available at low costs in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC). There is an ample amount of literature that look at cheaper options and can be used to remove pollutants from wastewater as replacement to activated carbon. Agricultural solid wastes for instance are good candidates in order to remove several dyes from aqueous solutions (De Gisi et al, 2016). Other examples include but are not limited to the various by-products produced during the industrial activities, sea materials, soil, and ore materials etc. (De Gisi et al, 2016). Needless to say, the benefits will certainly be two-fold which can allow for reduction in volume of by-products and additionally reduce the pollution of freshwater resources (De Gisi et al, 2016).

The need of the hour is to direct our attention to more non-conventional solid materials that are low cost, efficient and environmentally safe for pollutant removal. Additionally, while there are many papers published on the capacity and successes of various non-conventional adsorbents, not many papers are published in the context of these adsorbents being utilized in low- and middle-income countries on a large scale. Some of the low-cost alternatives of adsorbents have also not been widely used commercially and have only been tested out in laboratories. Certainly, a multi-disciplinary approach is needed in order to gain more knowledge and yield the benefits of using low-cost adsorbents (Saad et al, 2017). A paradigm shift with utilizing wastewater as a resource can allow for enhanced food security, climate change adaptation, and livelihood opportunities for many in the LMIC (Saad et al, 2017).

While technical aspects are vital, recognizing the social dynamics of a particular region in a nation with the use, development, and acceptability of this type of technology is also important. For e.g.: in Namibia, 35% of the drinking water is treated water (Saad et al, 2017). Likewise, in Mexico, treated wastewater has been used for agricultural purposes (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017). These developments can only go ahead with the approval of the people and whether using treated water for drinking purposes is even socially acceptable in a particular region. For this however, limited data and literature is available. In 2006, Queensland’s Toowoomba was faced with the question of drinking reclaimed water due to several years of drought in the region. Local officials thought this proposal would be a go-ahead however, it ended up being rejected by the people (Saad et al, 2017). In order to avoid a situation like this, there is a need to acknowledge people’s perceptions. For this, education, risk awareness, contact with the communities play a major role. Health issues pertaining to wastewater also need highlighting (Saad et al, 2017). With heavy workloads and limited access to knowledge, women in the developing nations are largely vulnerable to water-borne diseases (Saad et al, 2017). They are also usually the ones in the household that have no say in the decision-making process both at community and household levels because of their lower social status. This warrants a gender-specific and gender-sensitive approach in order for projects to be successfully implemented (Saad et al, 2017).

Success of wastewater management is not only driven by the efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness (Saad et al, 2017). Even if a country has enough resources to finance certain technological choices, it will be of no use if community participation and public involvement is not rallied (Saad et al, 2017). This makes plotting of sociotechnology planning and designing key players in the deployment of a sustainable technology in a geographical context. For this, stakeholders should be consulted in the decision-making processes every step of the way. This will help in minimizing conflicts in the long run. This can also allow key players who are bringing in the technology in the geographical area to have an opportunity to gain local knowledge and background of the region in order to make it successful (Saad et al, 2017). Another beneficial way to engage people would be to involve them in the technology aspect so they can take charge and perform any repairs that might be needed in the long run. Most times it could be that there might be a lack of trust in technology in the region which might require co-ordination. Saad et al, 2017 suggest that priority areas pertaining to these social dimensions include understanding “judgement strategies that shape public decisions to support or reject wastewater reuse, identifying factors influencing people’s risk perceptions, and investigating role of trust in authorities and limits in scientific knowledge in people’s decision making processes to either accept or reject the reuse”.

As a follow up to this, it is imperative to evaluate key issues and look for solutions so that wastewater treatment is made easier and convenient in LMIC. Perhaps looking at in-situ or at home wastewater adsorbents that are readily available for a community. While research in the stream of adsorbents is applauded and welcomed, it is necessary to look at different ways and means by which low-cost alternatives are made commercially available. This will help pave the way for more studies in the long run that look at the practicality aspect of such adsorbents. Then again, it is required that community engagement, planning and policy work be conducted in this realm which take time. Studies and research directed towards the role of gender and intersectionality within a community is also needed in order to better understand social norms and responsibilities in a particular geographical context.

In order for us to reach the SDG target 6.3 by 2030, there is an urge to act fast. Most importantly for LMIC, even though there are several low-cost alternatives for adsorbents available, very few are commercially viably at the moment. Additionally, research gaps point towards overlooked and omitted social aspects of their acceptance within a community. It is hoped that advancement in this field will lead to successful service delivery through the means of a sociotechnology approach that involves community engagement and consultation thereby responding to the many pressing matters of wastewater reuse and treatment.

References:

Crini, G., Lichtfouse, E., Wilson, L., & Morin-Crini, N. (2019). Conventional and Non-Conventional Adsorbents for Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 195–213. doi:10.1007/s10311–018–0786–8. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02082916/document

De Gisi, S. et al., (2016). Characteristics and adsorption capacities of low-cost sorbents for wastewater treatment: A review. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 9, pp.10–40. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993715300221

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017). Exploring the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture. Retrieved from fao.org: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/463433/icode/

Mohammed, Sadeeq A.; Wheatley, Andrew D.; Danso-Boateng, Eric; Nyktari, Eleni; Usen, I.C. (2017): Low-cost biomass as adsorbents for the removal of heavy metal ions from industrial wastewater used for crop irrigation in developing countries. Loughborough University. Conference contribution. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/31510

Saad, Dalia; Bryne, Deirdre; Drechsel, Pay (2017) Social Perspectives on the Effective Management of Wastewater, Physico-Chemical Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery, Robina Farooq and Zaki Ahmad, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/67312. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/physico-chemical-wastewater-treatment-and-resource-recovery/social-perspectives-on-the-effective-management-of-wastewater

United Nations (n. d.). Target 6.3- Water Quality and Wastewater. Retrieved from sdg6monitoring.org: https://www.sdg6monitoring.org/indicators/target-63/

United Nations University- Institute for Water (2019). Wastewater Treatment Status by Countries and Economies. Retrieved from inweh.unu.edu: https://inweh.unu.edu/wastewater-treatment-status-by-countries-and-economies/#:~:text=The%20aggregated%20numbers%20on%20wastewater,the%20wastewater%20generated%20is%20treated.