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

FIELD TESTING KITS FOR ARSENIC: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE MILLION-DOLLAR PROJECTS?

...Previous

(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]

COMMENTS ON THE REPORT

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:

Top

Next...