Water-supply options in arsenic-affected regions in Cambodia: targeting the bottom income quintiles
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026

Construction of a Low-cost Mobile Incubator for Field and Laboratory Use
Published on: March 19, 2019
Jim F Chamberlain1, David A Sabatini1
1OU WaTER Center, University of Oklahoma, United States.
Abstract:
In arsenic-affected regions of Cambodia, rural water committees and planners can choose to promote various arsenic-avoidance and/or arsenic-removal water supply systems. Each of these has different costs of providing water, subsequently born by the consumer in order to be sustainable. On a volumetric basis ($/m3-yr) and of the arsenic-avoidance options considered, small-scale public water supply - e.g., treated water provided to a central tap stand - is the most expensive option on a life-cycle cost basis. Rainwater harvesting, protected hand dug wells, and vendor-supplied water are the cheapest with a normalized present worth value, ranging from $2 to $10 per cubic meter per year of water delivered. Subsidization of capital costs is needed to make even these options affordable to the lowest (Q5) quintile. The range of arsenic-removal systems considered here, using adsorptive media, is competitive with large-scale public water supply and deep tube well systems. Both community level and household-scale systems are in a range that is affordable to the Q4 quintile, though more research and field trials are needed. At a target cost of $5.00/m3, arsenic removal systems will compete with the OpEx costs for most of the arsenic-safe water systems that are currently available. The life-cycle cost approach is a valuable method for comparing alternatives and for assessing current water supply practices as these relate to equity and the ability to pay.
Related Concept Videos
Water and Mineral Acquisition
Precipitation and Co-precipitation
Microbial Leaching
Aquaporins
Factors Affecting Solubility

