Water treatment with ozone is wonderful where the local economy has the money to support it, but with virtually all technologies in common use this is not for the poor of the developing world.  In 2015, in the public health journal Elsevier, decision-makers in the effort to get safe drinking water to the poor acknowledged that of all technologies assessed for viability in this effort, only boiling had achieved scale. And yet, from the inception of this effort boiling was negated as a possible technology because the poor could not afford it. Ozone water treatment should not be singled out as not being viable, but as with the other technologies in common use the poor will only have the benefit of this through substantial subsidy.  Even given such subsidy however, there will be a real question as to the sponsors’ commitment to a prolonged period of monitoring and evaluation.  Even so, such projects are bound to be few and far between and ultimately those deciding on such goals as those of 2030 will feel compelled to extend these to 2040 or 2050.  The only alternative is for the decision makers to take bold steps in seeking out genuinely sustainable technologies of water treatment, not waiting for the technologies to come to them.

Published by

Water treatment with ozone is wonderful where the local economy has the money to support it, but with virtually all technologies in common use this is not for the poor of the developing world.  In 2015, in the public health journal Elsevier, decision-makers in the effort to get safe drinking water to the poor acknowledged that of all technologies assessed for viability in this effort, only boiling had achieved scale. And yet, from the inception of this effort boiling was negated as a possible technology because the poor could not afford it.

Ozone water treatment should not be singled out as not being viable, but as with the other technologies in common use the poor will only have the benefit of this through substantial subsidy.  Even given such subsidy however, there will be a real question as to the sponsors’ commitment to a prolonged period of monitoring and evaluation. 

Even so, such projects are bound to be few and far between and ultimately those deciding on such goals as those of 2030 will feel compelled to extend these to 2040 or 2050.  The only alternative is for the decision makers to take bold steps in seeking out genuinely sustainable technologies of water treatment, not waiting for the technologies to come to them.

1 Comment

Dear Anthony,

I agree with you, the ozone havemany advantages over other technologies, and at the same time must be used with some engineering  criteria.

Can be used for poor people? Yes

Can be used in isolated zones? Yes

Can be used in small scale or individual homes? Yes

Is ozone more effective killing bacteria and elimating viruses than other disinfectants? Yes

Need some training to use? Yes

Has the local economy, money to support ozone disinfection system? Sometimes

There are many ways to disinfect from thermal methods as boiling to chemical adition methods as ozone, peroxide, and chlorine, and to find the best option we need to do a very good technical and cost-effective analysis.

Sometimes the boiling could be the best, in other cases ozone can be, in other casess a mix of them as the use of filtration followed by ozonation, but even always the decision-maker, his team and their knowkedge will influence the final decision.

That is the reason to adquire more knowledge in water disinfection, and not in limiting to the actual more known technologies.

Thanks to Mohammed to ask about it!

Regards,

 

Orlando D. Gutiérrez Coronado

Published by

Permalink