Ganga-Meghna Brahmaputra || West Bengal || Bangladesh || Middle Ganga Plain, Bihar || Uttarpradesh
Jharkhand || North-East Hilly States || Rajnandgaon, Chattisgarh || Behala, Kolkata, WB || As toxicity- Homeopathic Treatment
Effectiveness & Reliability - As Field Testing Kits || Utility Of Treatment Plant
Causes, Effects & Remedies - Groundwater As Calamity || References

Arsenic Poisoning in West Bengal : Field Testing Kits for Arsenic



(3) The UNICEF/DPHE/BRAC report further states, "While a positive correlation was found between Field-Kit and Arsenator results, the field kit results were found to differ substantially from arsenator results. Figure 2 shows the large amount scatter between the two analyses".
My question is, with about 28 samples plotted in Figure-2 out of 58 samples reported analysed by Arsenator and Field-Kit (Table Appendix Data Page-9 of the report) and getting the value of R2 0.2, can we say a positive correlation?

(4) From the report of UNICEF/DPHE/BRAC it appears they spent a lot of time on the assessment of NIPSOM field kit for Quantitative Effectiveness, Semi-Quantitative effectiveness and very low arsenic level <10 ppb when the NIPSOM kit reports its arsenic detection range to be 20 - 700 µg/l with colour scale 20, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 700 µg/l

(5) UNICEF/DPHE/BRAC to explain higher result of Field-Kit writes in page of its report, "The Arsenator could actually underestimated the arsenic level".
I am asking UNICEF/DPHE/BRAC why they did not use Standard Reference Material (SRM) to evaluate Arsenator or 20 samples analysed by Arsenator with FI-HG-AAS or similar reliable method.

From the appendix data (p-9) it appears that out of the 28 results where concentration measured by field kit was between 20 and 500 µg/l, in 10 samples (36 %) Arsenator results for arsenic were higher than field kit.
Further, to explain the field kit's higher result than Arsenator the UNICEF/DPHE/BRAC report writes, "The samples were stored for some two months before analysis." Shall we accept to analyse the samples after 2 months storage when from Figure-2, it appears that about 15 samples out of 28 samples plotted are between 20 - 50 µg/l?

[Action Research Report UNICEF/DPHE/BRAC Arsenic Testing of newly installed tubewells; Quality Control on Field Kit Analysis, March, 1999, page-4]


Joint Plan of Action to AddressArsenic Contamination of Drinking WaterGovernment of West Bengal and UNICEFNodal DepartmentPublic Health Engineering Department1999.

The Government of West Bengal, jointly with UNICEF, has taken up a project for 68 blocks in 8 arsenic-affected districts of West Bengal to know whether the arsenic concentration in tubewells is above or below 50 µg/l (yes/no). The project will be implemented soon and the expenses to get the data for 1,50,000 tubewells is about 1.2million US $. The budget shown below: