The objective of this project was to perform an overall feasibility analysis of point of use (POU) and point of entry (POE) systems for arsenic treatment, and to develop industry-wide recommendations for use of such systems as an alternative to centralized treatment, considering factors such as costs, process reliability, public perception, liability, and regulatory acceptance. The researchers also planned to assess water quality criteria that may limit the performance of POU/POE systems?and determine at what size POU/POE treatment systems are cost-effective. Given the operational, financial, and implementation constraints of arsenic removal for very small systems, installation of "under the sink" POU devices may be a more viable and cost-effective option. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments allow the use of POU and POE devices for compliance with certain MCLs (e.g., inorganics, organics, radionuclides) for small and rural systems. Since ingestion is the only exposure route of concern for arsenic, whole house treatment would not be?necessary.

The objective of this project was to perform an overall feasibility analysis of point of use (POU) and point of entry (POE) systems for arsenic treatment, and to develop industry-wide recommendations for use of such systems as an alternative to centralized treatment, considering factors such as costs, process reliability, public perception, liability, and regulatory acceptance. The researchers also planned to assess water quality criteria that may limit the performance of POU/POE systems?and determine at what size POU/POE treatment systems are cost-effective. Given the operational, financial, and implementation constraints of arsenic removal for very small systems, installation of "under the sink" POU devices may be a more viable and cost-effective option. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments allow the use of POU and POE devices for compliance with certain MCLs (e.g., inorganics, organics, radionuclides) for small and rural systems. Since ingestion is the only exposure route of concern for arsenic, whole house treatment would not be?necessary.

The objective of this project was to perform an overall feasibility analysis of point of use (POU) and point of entry (POE) systems for arsenic treatment, and to develop industry-wide recommendations for use of such systems as an alternative to centralized treatment, considering factors such as costs, process reliability, public perception, liability, and regulatory acceptance. The researchers also planned to assess water quality criteria that may limit the performance of POU/POE systems?and determine at what size POU/POE treatment systems are cost-effective. Given the operational, financial, and implementation constraints of arsenic removal for very small systems, installation of "under the sink" POU devices may be a more viable and cost-effective option. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments allow the use of POU and POE devices for compliance with certain MCLs (e.g., inorganics, organics, radionuclides) for small and rural systems. Since ingestion is the only exposure route of concern for arsenic, whole house treatment would not be?necessary.