Respectively, Associate, Industrial Economics Inc., 2067 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140; Professor and Head, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 208 Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061; and State Toxicologist, Maine Bureau of Health, 157 Capitol Street, 11 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333 (E-Mail/Sargent-Michaud: firstname.lastname@example.org).
COST EFFECTIVE ARSENIC REDUCTIONS IN PRIVATE WELL WATER IN MAINE1
Version of Record online: 8 JUN 2007
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Volume 42, Issue 5, pages 1237–1245, October 2006
How to Cite
Sargent-Michaud, J., Boyle, K. J. and Smith, A. E. (2006), COST EFFECTIVE ARSENIC REDUCTIONS IN PRIVATE WELL WATER IN MAINE. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42: 1237–1245. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb05297.x
Paper No. 03195 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA)
- Issue online: 8 JUN 2007
- Version of Record online: 8 JUN 2007
- water policy/regulation/decision making;
- removal technology costs;
- private wells;
- POU POE
ABSTRACT: This study was undertaken to investigate the cost effectiveness of selected arsenic avoidance methods. Annual costs of reverse osmosis (RO), activated alumina (AA), bottled water, and rented and purchased water coolers for various household sizes in Maine were compared. Relative ranking of systems shows that RO ($411 annually) is the most cost effective, followed by AA ($518) and one-gallon jugs of water ($321 to $1,285), respectively, for households larger than one person. One-gallon jugs ($321) followed by 2.5-gallon jugs ($358) of water were found to be the most cost effective for households of one person or for households with arsenic III concentrations of 0.02 to 0.06 mg/L and arsenic V concentrations of 0.08 to 1.0 mg/L. Point-of-entry systems and water coolers were not found to be cost effective under any of the study's conditions. The research reported here will help states make more definitive treatment recommendations to households regarding the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment systems to reduce arsenic concentrations below 0.01 mg/L. While arsenic removal technologies are improving, which enhances removal rates and reduces costs, the major insights from this analysis appear to be reinforced by technological improvements.