2019 Technosocial Feasibility Analysis of Solar Powered UV LED Water Treatment System in A Remote Island of Guimaras Philippines

Technosocial feasibility analysis of
solar-powered UV-LED water

treatment system in a remote island
of Guimaras, Philippines
Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco

Aris C. Larroder
Kumiko Oguma
Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco, Aris C. Larroder, Kumiko Oguma, “Technosocial feasibility analysis of solar-
powered UV-LED water treatment system in a remote island of Guimaras, Philippines,” J.
Photon. Energy 9(4), 043105 (2019), doi: 10.1117/1.JPE.9.043105.
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
Technosocial feasibility analysis of solar-powered
UV-LED water treatment system in a remote island
of Guimaras, Philippines
Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco,a,b,* Aris C. Larroder,c and Kumiko Ogumab,d

a
The University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Engineering, Department of Advanced
Interdisciplinary Studies, Tokyo, Japan
b
The University of Tokyo, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan
c
Philippine Science High School—Western Visayas Campus, Department of Science and
Technology, Science Education Institute, Iloilo City, Philippines
d
The University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Engineering, Department of Urban Engineering,
Tokyo, Japan
Abstract. The technical and the social feasibility of using solar-powered ultraviolet light-emit-
ting diode (UV-LED) module for a microbial water treatment system in Panobolon Island,
Central Philippines, were investigated. Technical feasibility was assessed through a laboratory
scale prototype and water point source sampling in nine selected deep wells of Panobolon Island.
On the other hand, social feasibility was determined from survey responses of the island
residents. Results revealed that (1) regulated solar power is a suitable alternative power source
for UV-LED apparatus, (2) all water point sources tested in Panobolon island were positive for
Escherichia coli contamination, and (3) the proposed system is socially accepted by the resi-
dents. Therefore, it can be concluded that the solar-powered UV-LED microbial water treatment
system proposed is a viable solution to improve the quality of the drinking water consumed by
the residents. © 2019 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) [DOI: 10.1117/1.JPE.9
.043105]
Keywords: coliform; microbial inactivation; off-the-grid system; thin-film photovoltaics; ultra-

violet light-emitting diodes; water disinfection.
Paper 19016SS received Feb. 28, 2019; accepted for publication Jun. 14, 2019; published online
Jul. 10, 2019.
1 Introduction
The presence of Escherichia coli (E. coli) can be considered as an indicator of fecal contami-
nation in drinking water worldwide.1,2 Some strains of E. coli can be pathogenic, and may cause
life-threatening diseases, such as severe diarrhea,3,4 among warm-blooded animals. According to
the World Health Organization (WHO) standard for drinking water, no E. coli or any thermo-
tolerant coliform bacteria must be detected per 100 mL of water.5 Past studies in some African
countries have reported that most of the water point sources tested positive for fecal contami-
nation. Some of them have more than 103 coliform colony-forming units per mL (CFU/mL),
suggesting a high probability of pathogen presence in the water. Specifically, in Blantyre,
Malawi, more than 80% of the water samples from shallow wells, boreholes, and tap were tested
and found to be positive for E. coli.6–8 Meanwhile, 70% and 39% of the examined boreholes and
wells in Zimbabwe and Namibia, respectively, were also positive for E. coli.9,10 Similar findings
were obtained from the previous assessment of water point sources in the Philippines. E. coli
contamination was found prevalent among the sources tested in the mountainous regions of
South Cotabato11 and various locations in Capiz.12 Furthermore, E. coli is widespread along
the streams of Jalaur River, Iloilo,13 and coastal areas along Lingayen Gulf, Pangasinan14 and
Panukulan, Polillo Island, Quezon.15,16 Water point sources in tourist destinations, such as
*Address all correspondence to Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco, E-mail: yujeco@mbe.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp
1947-7988/2019/$28.00 © 2019 SPIE
Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-1 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Yu Jeco, Larroder, and Oguma: Technosocial feasibility analysis of solar-powered UV-LED. . .
Boracay Island, Aklan,17 Bantayan Island, Cebu,18 and partially residential Tingloy Island in
Batangas19 were also tested and found to be contaminated with E.coli and other coliforms.
In Sibunag, Guimaras, Central Philippines alone, the average microbial contamination
detected was 103 CFU/mL in untreated drinking water collected from springs and wells.20
Moreover, a trend was established that microbial contamination in Guimaras has been increasing
since 2003.21 Based on this report, there seems to be a need to improve the current quality of
drinking water sources in other locations in Guimaras. However, no information is available
about microbial contamination in other areas of Guimaras, most especially those in off-the-grid
areas. Hence, Panobolon Island was chosen as a preliminary study area.
To treat water with microbial contamination, one may use microfiltration/ultrafiltration, natu-
ral treatment through aquifers, chemical disinfection using chlorine, and ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection.22–25 Among these, UV disinfection is highly recommended as it offers the following
advantages over the other methods of pathogenic inactivation in water: (1) initial and operating
costs are lower, (2) has a small footprint, (3) chemical-free inactivation—hence odorless, (4) high
levels of pathogenic inactivation can be achieved, and (5) is capable to inactivate chemical-resist-
ant pathogens, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium.23 In this regard, UV mercury vapor lamps
have been used for water treatment.22,25–27 Recently, UV light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) have
been proven to be efficient in inactivating E. coli in water or any aqueous solution;28,29 UV-LEDs
are mercury-free, compact, and may be used in households connected to the national electricity
and water grid. However, in off-the-grid areas, access to electricity that can provide power to UV-
LEDs is typically through crude oil-powered electric generators. Crude oil is exhaustible,30 emits
carbon dioxide,31 and may cause ocean32 and soil pollution,33 if mishandled during transporta-
tion to remote islands and mountains, respectively. To alleviate carbon dioxide emission and
prevent land and sea pollution hazards brought about by crude oil, renewable energy sources
may serve as alternative, on-site sources of electric power. One of these sources is solar energy
that can be harnessed through a photovoltaic (PV) device. Since a PV device produces direct
current (DC) and UV-LEDs require DC, these devices are compatible for integration.
This paper showcases a study on the technical and social (thus, referred to as “technosocial”)
feasibility of implementing solar-powered UV-LED water treatment system in off-the-grid areas
of Guimaras, Central Philippines. On the technical side, the application of solar power to drive
UV-LED modules was tested on a laboratory scale using a low-cost copper–indium–gallium–
selenide (CIGS) thin film solar panels34,35 as a power supply to the UV-LED device for E. coli
inactivation. CIGS thin-film solar panels were projected to reduce significant material costs by
eliminating the need for silicon wafers,36 which are commonly produced in an inert and highly-
controlled environment.37 The cost of CIGS modules produced by, in particular, an ink-based
approach developed recently, is predicted to be reduced to US$ 0.34/W while garnering a power
conversion efficiency of about 20% or more,38 which is still comparable to that of a crystalline
silicon module at around 25%.39 In addition, water samples were collected from nine selected
water point sources, specifically deep wells in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras,
Philippines. The degree of E. coli contamination in these samples was examined through the
membrane filtration technique to confirm the need for a water treatment system. Furthermore,
the social acceptance of the proposed solution was evaluated through a questionnaire survey
among the residents of the island.
The outcome of this study may serve as a technosocial feasibility analysis model for off-the-
grid communities other than Panobolon Island.
2 Methodology
2.1 Laboratory Scale Prototype Design and Testing
2.1.1 CIGS-powered UV-LED apparatus

A schematic and the actual photo of the lab-scale CIGS thin-film PV (TFPV)-powered UV-LED
setup used for E. coli inactivation are shown in Figs. 1 and 12 and in Sec. 5, respectively. In these
figures, the 1-m2 CIGS TFPV panel is a commercial prototype, whose absorption is within the

Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the UV-LED apparatus powered by a 1-m2 CIGS TFPV panel
under continuous 500-W halogen lamp illumination.
UV-VIS range,40 and the UV-LED module contains four (4) 280-nm LEDs (Nikkiso Giken,
Japan) connected in series. To energize the UV-LEDs, the CIGS TFPV panel was exposed
to a continuous 500-W halogen lamp. This was treated as a solar simulator since its emission
spectrum, which is between 300 and 1000 nm, covers the significant range of the solar irradiance
spectrum.41 The lamp and the panel were separated by a fixed distance of 39 cm, such that the
voltage supplied to the UV-LEDs was 25.5 V. To avoid photoreactivation of the E. coli sam-
ples,42,43 the lamp and the panel were optically isolated from the UV-LED apparatus and the E.
coli samples by a thick, black curtain. In addition, the room illumination was kept as low as
possible and was filtered using a violet cellophane paper during UV-LED exposure. To control
the UV dose applied on the E. coli samples, a shutter was used in parallel with a timer. The
samples were exposed to the UV-LED apparatus for 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 s, at which a 1-
mL sample was transferred to a glass tube containing sterilized 9-mL phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS) solution every after 15 s of exposure.
2.1.2 Preparation and enumeration of E. coli

The test micro-organism used was a pure culture of E. coli K12 IFO 3301 from the Institute for
Fermentation, Osaka. Pure E. coli (1 mL) was added into a test tube containing 9 mL of Luria-
Bertani (LB) broth. This test tube was then incubated for 12 h at 37°C, at which the growth has
reached its stationary phase.44 Then, the suspension was centrifuged at 6000 rpm and at 20°C for
10 min. After this, the LB broth was extracted and then discarded, leaving the E. coli pellet
behind. Next, a sterilized 10-mL PBS solution was used to wash the pellet thoroughly. The
PBS wash was done twice. Then, the pellet was resuspended in a new PBS solution to obtain
samples for UV-LED exposure test. After UV exposure, the samples were diluted aseptically and
added to presterilized disposable Petri dishes in duplicate. The samples were then solidified on
Chromocult® agar, and the Petri dishes were covered with aluminum foil and incubated at 37°C
for 24 h. Then, the CFU on each incubated dish were counted. From this, the CFU per unit
volume, C, was calculated using

n1 þ n2
C ¼ DPBS × ; (1)
2
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e001;116;216
where n1 and n2 are the CFU counts on the duplicate dishes and DPBS is the dilution factor. At
least three independent trials were conducted to assess the repeatability.
2.1.3 Radiation biodosimetry

In obtaining the average UV-LED irradiance, I avg , the following factors were considered:
(1) divergence factor, DF, (2) Petri factor, PF, (3) reflection factor, RF, and (4) water factor,
WF.28,45 DF can be neglected since the distance between the UV-LED and the Petri dish surface,
which was about 8 cm, was more than four times the sample path length, which was about 1 cm,

hence, assumed as 100%. PF assumed was 90%,45 which accounts for the UV-LED irradiance
heterogeneity. RF used was 97.5%,45 which accounts for the light reflection occurring at the
interface of two different media, derived from the refractive indices of air and water. Last,
WF, which accounts for the absorption variation with respect to the depth of a medium, was
calculated using the definition from the Beer–Lambert’s law, which is given by
1 − 10−αλ x
WF ¼ ; (2)
αλ x lnð10Þ
where αλ is the absorption coefficient of the sample, measured using a UV-VIS spectrophotom-
eter, and x is the sample level depth in the dish. Then, I avg is calculated as follows:
I avg ¼ PF × RF × WF × I 0 ;
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e003;116;610 (3)
where I 0 is the measured irradiance at the E. coli sample surface. Since the surface level sinks
down when 1 mL of sample was taken away from the glass Petri dish after every exposure, I avg is
corrected by ratio and proportion. Considering its inverse square relationship with the distance
from the UV-LED source, the correction is given by
Iavg d2
I avg 0 ¼ : (4)
ðd 0 Þ2
Here, d is the distance between the UV-LED emission and the sample surface before exposure, at
0
which I avg was measured with a spectrometer, and I avg is the irradiance at distance, d 0 , between
the UV-LED emission and the sample surface after taking out a portion of it. Finally, the fluence,
FUV , was obtained from the averaged irradiances multiplied by the UV-LED exposure time, t.
To determine the decay of E. coli population over t, the experimental logarithmic survival
ratio, log SR, was obtained using the relation:

C
log SR ¼ log t ; (5) EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e005;116;416
C0
where Ct is the CFU per unit volume at t and C0 is the CFU at t ¼ 0 s .
2.1.4 E. coli inactivation model

The fluence-based inactivation rate constant of E. coli, kF , was determined by fitting the exper-
imental E.coli inactivation data into a log-linear regression line given as follows:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e006;116;300 log SR ¼ kF FUV þ b; (6)
where b is the y-intercept of the regression line.46 In the test for fitness, the shoulder and tail
regions were excluded. The goodness-of-fit parameters, coefficient of regression (r2 ) and root-
mean-square error (RMSE), were evaluated using the least squares method. Having smaller
RMSE and r2 closer to 1 indicates a better fit.
2.2 Study Area

The study area chosen was Panobolon Island, an off-the-grid island community located approx-
imately at 10.4053°N, 122.5789°E in the Municipality of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras Province,
Region VI—Western Visayas, Central Philippines.47 Its land area is 3.11 km2 , and it has levels
I and III water supply sources. The source classification is based on national standards described
in Refs. 21 and 47. Level I sources include dug wells, artesian wells, shallow and deep wells, and
natural sources, such as springs and creeks, and Level III sources are large-scale water systems.
One of the residents’ main sources of income is fishing. In addition, the average monthly income
of the residents belonging to the workforce is around Php 2250, or US$ 42.45, where US 1 ≈ Php
53.47,48 For energy consumption, the residents primarily rely on crude oil-powered electric
generators and solar power systems.47

2.3 Water Point Source Sampling in Panobolon Island

There are three standard coliform detection methods49 reported to be useful in past studies,
namely, multiple tube fermentation,15,19 chromogenic substrate test,13 and membrane filtration
technique.6–8 In this study, the membrane filtration technique was employed.
Two days were allotted for gathering samples in nine selected water point sources in
Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines. Throughout this paper, water point
sources are alternatively called as sampling sites. Referring to the map of the Philippines in
Fig. 2(a) and Western Visayas in Fig. 2(b), the approximate location map of the sampling sites
in Panobolon Island, shown as blue dots in Fig. 2(c), is plotted using the mWater Surveyor
mobile application. On the first day, 50 mL of water sample was acquired from each site, which
was then injected into the membrane filter monitor unit (ADVANTEC). This was followed by the
injection of 1-mL m-ColiBlue24 Broth© (Millipore). Then, the membrane monitor units were
incubated for 12 h at 37°C. After incubation, CFUs on the monitor were counted to classify the
blue colonies as E. coli while the red colonies as other coliforms, according to the disk man-
ufacturer’s protocol. Hence, the sum of the red and the blue colonies is the total coliform count. If
the colonies were too numerous to count, beyond about 80 CFU per monitor unit, the sampling
was repeated on the second day. In this case, the injection volume for the day 2 samples was
reduced, down to a minimum of 1 mL depending on the result of day 1 sampling. On the other
hand, if the CFU count per monitor unit was less than 30 units during the first day, the injected
volume for the day 2 samples was increased up to a maximum of 100 mL, according to the WHO
guideline requiring zero detection of E. coli or thermotolerant coliform in 100 mL.5
If the membrane filter in the disk was accidentally torn during sampling, i.e., by uninten-
tionally pulling the sampling syringe while the tip is injected in the disk inlet, a new disk was
Fig. 2 (a) Map of the Philippines, where the region enclosed in the dotted box is Region VI—
Western Visayas. (b) Region VI—Western Visayas map, where the region enclosed is Panobolon
Island. (c) Location map of the selected sampling sites (blue dots) in Panobolon Island (green dot)
plotted using mWater Surveyor mobile application.

used. Additionally, it should be noted that the coliform detection results may vary by season and
location;7,8,11,15 therefore, the results obtained solely represent the water condition during the
sampling period specified.
2.4 Questionnaire Surveys Conducted among the Residents of Panobolon

Island
A survey was conducted to learn the following: (1) statistics of the community; (2) the extent to
which the community needs a solar-powered water treatment system; (3) their willingness to
spend for the installation of the system proposed; and (4) their willingness to build, operate,
and maintain the system if installed. The survey questionnaire was divided into three segments,
addressing community statistics, solar-powered generator system, and water treatment system,
with 16, 10, and 10 questions, respectively.
The heads of 245 households of Panobolon Island were invited to voluntarily participate in a
research survey about the building of a solar-powered water treatment system in off-the-grid
microcommunities, where one microcommunity consists of 50 households. From 245 house-
holds, 70 residents voluntarily participated. All of them were adults from both genders, where
female participants were about 57% of the total number of respondents. As the survey was vol-
untary, the gender balance of the respondents was not considered. During the survey, they were
allowed to decline answering any particular question or even participating in the survey itself.
The survey was done during the community assembly, so the residents simultaneously answered
the questionnaire for about 30 min. Answer replacements were allowed until the questionnaires
were submitted to the surveyors. For research ethics compliance, the identities of survey par-
ticipants were kept confidential. In addition, each participant was requested to sign an informed
consent form.
The list of questions can be found in the Appendix, Sec. 5. Additionally, copies of the sample
survey questionnaire and informed consent form may be requested from the corresponding
author via e-mail.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 E. coli Inactivation using CIGS-Powered UV-LED Apparatus

Figure 3 shows the log SR ratio box plot of three independent trials at various UV-LED fluences,
FUV .50 Here, the circle symbol is the mean value of log SR ratio among the independent trials.
Fig. 3 Log survival ratio, log SR, versus UV-LED fluence, F UV , box plot of three independent
E. coli inactivation trials, where the circle symbols are the mean log SR values.50

Table 1 Summary of experimental E. coli inactivation data fitting into a log-linear regression line
for acquiring fluence inactivation rate, k F , from three independent trials.
Fluence inactivation Regression line Coefficient of Root-mean-square

Trial # rate, k F (cm2 ∕mJ) y -intercept, b regression, r 2 error, RMSE
1 0.398 −1.54 0.9732 0.2718
2 0.404 −1.51 0.9907 0.1608
3 0.488 −2.07 0.9966 0.1177
A slight deviation is observed among the independent trials. This may be attributed to the E. coli
having grown in different numbers during independent incubations, which is a common property
of microbial test,51 and to the fluctuation of voltage generated by the CIGS TFPV panel,
observed within the order of 0.1 V before and after the inactivation experiments. The latter was
observed even though the continuous light source was used and was stationary throughout the
experiment.
Considering that the light source has a high power rating and there was a tight distance
between the light source and the panel, which was less than a meter, the panel heated up faster.
As the temperature of the panel increased because of lamp exposure over time to maintain ther-
mal equilibrium with its surroundings, which was at room temperature (25°C), the power it deliv-
ered to the UV-LEDs may have decreased,52 thereby weakening its fluence after a period of time.
This power decrease may have been inconsistent in the different trials, thereby resulting in kF
variation per trial. In addition, previously reported kF value for 280-nm UV-LED inactivation of
E. coli IFO 3301,53 which was 0.561 cm2 ∕mJ, was higher compared to the set of kF values
reported here, hence, the slower inactivation rate using the setup in this study. Another reason
could be the overestimation of PF, having the irradiance measured only at the center of the UV
illumination. These observations, therefore, suggest (1) that the power supplied by the TFPV
would need regulation in order to deliver inactivation results as consistently as possible, (2) that
the power delivered to the UV-LED module should be increased to possibly increase kF ,
(3) doing chemical actinometry as in Ref. 53, or (4) conducting spectrometer irradiance meas-
urement at multiple spots under the UV-LEDs to identify the causes of heterogeneity more accu-
rately. The kF values acquired from fitting each trial data into Eq. (6) are listed in Table 1.
Despite these quantitative discrepancies, it was found that the CIGS TFPV panel was able to
successfully substitute for a conventional rectified power supply in driving 280-nm UV-LEDs.
To make the designed system more applicable for outdoor conditions where the sunlight power
available is typically intermittent due to cloud shading,54 the CIGS TFPV panel power output
should be regulated using a solar charge controller and a rechargeable battery. Adding these
components can also extend the lifespan of solar panels55,56 and UV-LEDs, which prefer a stable
power source.
3.2 Coliform Detection Results of Water Point Source Sampling in

Panobolon Island
Figure 4 shows the E. coli and other coliform counts acquired from the visited water point
sources in Panobolon Island. Adding them together yields the total coliform count per sampling
site. The sampling was done on September 2018, during the monsoon or wet season in the
Philippines and a week after a typhoon hit Northern Philippines;57 thus, the area was under low
pressure when the study was conducted. As mentioned earlier, all water point sources tested were
deep wells. All of them were found positive for E. coli and other coliform contamination.
Possible sources of E. coli contamination were human feces, considering that there is no sewage
system in the island, and excrement of animals grazing within 100 m, which could be an insuf-
ficient distance from the well to prevent contamination.58 Since all nine sites tested positive for
E. coli contamination, the need for Panobolon Island to have UV-LED or any microbial water
treatment system arises. Table 2 summarizes the numerical coliform detection results at each site.

Fig. 4 E. coli (pattern fill) and other coliform (solid fill) CFU count/100 mL in water samples
acquired from tested deep wells in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines,
where the x axis is in logarithmic scale.
Table 2 Numerical summary of coliform detection in samples from nine water point sources of
Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
Site # Total coliform count (CFU/100 mL) E. coli count (CFU/100 mL)
1 2100 540
2 21,600 2500
3 5280 260
4 6310 270
5 Too many to count Too many to count
6 Too many to count Too many to count
7 8560 4070
8 883 17
9 4810 280
As noted earlier, coliform detection results may vary by season and location;7,8,11,15 hence, the
results reported here only represent the water condition in September 2018.
Aside from coliform detection, water samples were taken from nine deep wells in duplicate
for turbidity measurement. Table 7 in Sec. 5 summarizes the turbidity measurements obtained
from duplicate water samples. For the UV light to be able to penetrate into the water being
disinfected, turbidities of less than 5 NTU are desired.59,60 Based on the individual and mean
turbidity measurement results for seven deep wells, UV-LED is a feasible technology for deep
well water disinfection in Panobolon Island. As for the other two deep wells that have turbidities
greater than 5 NTU, extending the UV-LED exposure time or applying water filtration method
prior to UV-LED exposure to reduce turbidity will be needed.23,61
3.3 Survey Responses of Panobolon Island Residents

Seventy residents of Panobolon Island voluntarily participated in the survey on October 26,
2018. The responses were divided into two parts: (1) those relevant to resource statistics of the

community; and (2) the social acceptance assessment of solar power generator and water treat-
ment system.
3.3.1 Community resource statistics

To determine the number of potential users of the solar-powered UV-LED water treatment sys-
tem proposed, the residents were asked about their household statistics. The first question asked
was about the number of household members according to age. In Guimaras province, there is an
average of 4.3 members in a household as of 2018.62 Specific to Panobolon Island, there is an
average of three to four adults (18 years old and above), one to two children (3 to 17 years old),
and zero to one infant (0 to 2 years old) per household according to the survey respondents.
Next, the residents were asked about their monthly income brackets, where US 1 ≈ Php 53.48
The monthly income summary is shown in Fig. 5(a). Fifty percent of the respondents earn US$
18.87 (Php 1000) and below and 1.4% has a variable monthly income, which could get as low as
nothing and as high as US$ 452.83 (Php 24,000) in the months of August and December, respec-
tively. In regard to their power supply expenditures shown in Fig. 5(b), 22.9% of the respondents
do not pay anything monthly. This could be due to the fact that some residents receive donations
and subsidies from the government and nonprofit organizations. In addition, these respondents
could be harnessing power from free sources already, such as solar energy. Meanwhile, 20.0% of
the respondents pay between US$ 0.94 and US$ 1.89 (Php 50 and 100). With these findings, it
may be inferred that the feasible monthly budget allotment for paying out alternative power
generators could be US$ 1.89 (Php 100) or less per household.
The breakdown of power generating systems owned by the respondents is shown in Fig. 6(a).
Out of the 70 respondents, 64.3% of them already own solar power generator systems, which
implies that this technology is already widely accepted by the residents. Furthermore, 48.6% of
these systems generate less than 1 kW at their peak energy conversion, as shown in Fig. 6(b).
Based on 2016 Philippine power consumption data released by the Department of Energy,63 the
total population and electric power consumption of the country were 102,624,209 people and
Fig. 5 Summary of monthly (a) income and (b) power generation expenses of respondents
residing in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines, where US 1 ≈ Php 53.48
Fig. 6 Breakdown of (a) power generation systems used and (b) summary of installed solar power
generator system capacity owned by respondents residing in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia,
Guimaras, Philippines.

Fig. 7 Breakdown of (a) water sources, (b) water supply expenses, where US 1 ≈ Php 53,48 and
(c) water quality satisfaction assessment of the respondents residing in Panobolon Island, Nueva
Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
90,798,891 MWh/year, respectively. This means that a household member in the Philippines
consumes about 0.1 kW. Since the average household size in Guimaras was known to be
4.3 or 4 to 5 members,62 a household will need a solar power generator rating of 0.4 to
0.5 kW. Hence, a 25-kW solar panel system may be sufficient for a microcommunity in
Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras.
The breakdown of drinking water sources for the respondents is shown in Fig. 7(a). Here,
other water sources are the following: (1) refilling stations in Guimaras mainland, (2) rain, and
(3) commercial mineral water. As shown in the figure, 72.9% of them get water from deep wells.
As listed in Table 2, all deep well sources were found to be contaminated by E. coli. Therefore,
from Fig. 7(a), it can be inferred that the community needs a water treatment system that will be
compatible with their deep wells.
Regarding the monthly expenses on water supply shown in Fig. 7(b), 27.1% do not spend
anything for water supply for the reason that these respondents may have received donations
from the government or a nonprofit organization for the construction of their water point sources.
Another reason could be that they get water by collecting rain or by obtaining it directly from
natural sources, such as spring and seawater. On the other hand, 45.8% of the respondents spend
US$ 3.77 (Php 200) and below monthly for their water supply. The respondents’ satisfaction
with their water quality was also assessed. Survey results revealed that 48.6% of them are
satisfied.
To further assess the need of the community respondents for a water treatment system, their
waterborne disease encounter was investigated. First, they were asked which waterborne dis-
eases they have had in the past. As shown in Fig. 8(a), 65.7% had the waterborne disease before,
with diarrhea having the highest number of cases, as revealed by 37.1% of them. Then, the
frequency of their encounter with waterborne diseases per year was asked and the responses
are shown in Fig. 8(b). Out of the 70 respondents, 48.6% said that they got sick one to two
times per year due to waterborne diseases. Considering the coliform detection results shown
in Table 2 and Fig. 4, the respondents’ waterborne disease encounter may be attributed to their
use of contaminated deep well water not only for drinking but also for hygienic purposes and
some domestic chores, such as food preparation and dishwashing. Having more than 50% of the
respondents encountering waterborne diseases in various frequencies per year suggests that there
is a need for a water treatment system in their community. When they had waterborne diseases,
48.6% and 41.4% of the respondents answered that they got diagnosed and received treatment

Fig. 8 Breakdown of waterborne disease (a) encounter, (b) frequency per year, and (c) diagnosis
method, and (d) where the respondents residing in Panobolon Island received treatment.
Table 3 Waterborne disease awareness of the respondents residing in Panobolon Island,

Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
Responded Responded Did not

Question yes (%) no (%) answer (%)
Aware of bacteria in water? 54.3 42.9 2.9
Among those who had waterborne disease:
• Root cause known? 32.9 17.1 50.0
Among those who never had waterborne disease:
• Aware of waterborne diseases? 55.7 28.6 15.7
• Threatened by waterborne diseases? 38.6 22.9 38.5
when they consulted a doctor, as shown in Figs. 8(c) and 8(d), respectively. Such diseases could
be prevented if a water treatment system were built in the community.
Questions related to the residents’ awareness about waterborne diseases were asked during
the survey and their answers are summarized in Table 3. Survey results revealed that 54.3% of
the respondents were aware that bacteria in drinking water may cause waterborne diseases.
Among those who had waterborne diseases, 32.9% knew the root cause while 17.1% did not.
Meanwhile, 50% did not answer the question, possibly because they never had waterborne dis-
eases or they were uncomfortable in answering the question. Among those who had never
encountered any waterborne disease in the past, 55.7% were aware of these diseases and
38.6% were threatened by such diseases. Since they are the majority of the respondents, this
result suggests that they are not secure about the cleanliness of their water sources. One way
to feel secure about their water sources could be the installation of a microbial water treatment
system.
The respondents were also asked about the water treatment method that they currently use in
their households. The breakdown of responses is shown in Fig. 9. The majority (20.0%) of those
who answered this question said that they purify their drinking water by boiling, whereas the rest
had access to desalination, distillation, filtration, and sedimentation. While other respondents did
not specify any treatment method, it is possible that they purchased their drinking water from

Fig. 9 Breakdown of water treatment method that the respondents residing in Panobolon Island
use as of October 2018.
supermarkets or refilling stations in the mainland. Thus, they had no specific information about
the treatment method used for the drinking water they purchased. Meanwhile, the results
revealed that none of the respondents uses UV disinfection for their drinking water. These may
imply that UV disinfection technology has not yet reached their community. As UV light, spe-
cifically LEDs,28,29 has been found to be very efficient for E. coli inactivation in water, this may
help reduce the number of cases of waterborne diseases related to E. coli contamination if used
by the community.
3.3.2 Social acceptance of solar power generator and water treatment system
To gather information about the residents’ willingness to have solar power generators in their
microcommunities, the respondents were asked a series of questions related to how much they
were willing to spend to purchase them and how interested they were to build, maintain, and
operate them. First, they were asked how much they were willing to contribute initially to put up
a solar power generator in their microcommunities. As shown in Fig. 10(a), 54.3% of the respon-
dents were willing to contribute between US$ 0.94 and 1.89 (Php 50 and 100) for the initial cost.
This means that if a microcommunity is composed of 50 households, assuming that only one
member per household earns money, then the initial cost that could be gathered is between US$
47.16 and 94.34 (Php 2500 and 5000). Next, the respondents were asked how much they were
willing to contribute monthly for the maintenance of the solar power generator. As shown in
Fig. 10(b), 64.3% were willing to contribute US$ 0.94 to 1.89 (Php 50 to 100) monthly.
Considering the 10% of the majority’s monthly salary ceiling shown in Fig. 5(a) and that
22.9% of them do not pay anything for their current power sources, as shown in Fig. 5(b), the
ideal monthly contribution should not exceed US$ 0.94 (Php 50) per household. Commercially,
1-kW peak power is available from US$ 23.58 to 45.28 (Php 1250 to 2400) per month without
initial cost.64 This is 25 to 48 times larger than the amount the respondents were willing to pay.
Hence, to address the remaining cost, government and nonprofit organization subsidies would be
necessary for putting up a solar power generator for a microcommunity in Panobolon Island.
Fig. 10 Breakdown of the amounts the respondents residing in Panobolon Island are willing to pay
for (a) the initial cost and (b) monthly operation cost of a solar power generator system in their
microcommunity, where US 1 ≈ Php 53.48

Fig. 11 Breakdown of the amounts the respondents residing in Panobolon Island are willing to
pay for (a) the initial cost of and (b) monthly for a water treatment system servicing their micro-
community, where US 1 ≈ Php 53.48
For a more sustainable approach, the local people may also be trained to make the solar power
system generate income to support the system’s operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
To know about the residents’ willingness to have a water treatment system in their micro-
community, they were asked a series of questions related to how much they spend for their
current water supply, their willingness to purchase, and their interest to build, maintain and oper-
ate the water treatment system. For this, they were asked how much they were willing to con-
tribute initially to put up a water treatment system servicing their microcommunity. As shown in
Fig. 11(a), 67.1% of the respondents were willing to contribute between US$ 0.94 and 1.89 (Php
50 and 100) for the initial cost, suggesting that between US$ 47.17 and 94.34 (Php 2500–5000)
could be gathered from a microcommunity. Aside from this, the respondents were asked how
much they were willing to contribute monthly for the maintenance of the water treatment system.
As shown in Fig. 11(b), 64.3% were willing to contribute US$ 0.94 to 1.89 (Php 50–100)
monthly. Depending on the complexity of the water treatment system, the remaining cost for
maintaining it may also seek coverage from the government and nonprofit organization subsi-
dies. Alternatively, the residents may turn it into a business, as suggested earlier for financing
solar power generators.
In Table 4, the willingness of the respondents to have a solar power generator and water
treatment system is summarized. Solar power generators and water treatment system exist in
the communities, according to 82.9% and 52.9%, respectively. Meanwhile, 74.3% and
35.7% own solar power generators and water treatment systems, respectively. When asked if
they needed one, 94.3% of the respondents said yes to both systems. Their reasons for needing
solar power generators were (1) power supply insufficiency in the island and (2) for them to be
able to move around and carry out chores in the evening with bright household lighting. As for
their reasons for needing water treatment system for drinking water, they mentioned the follow-
ing: (1) to eliminate the need to go to the mainland to get clean drinking water, (2) for the con-
venience of the community, (3) for socializing with other residents in the area where the system
is installed, and (4) to be assured that they have safe drinking water. Meanwhile, the respondents
were asked if they want these systems in their communities. It was revealed from their answers
Table 4 Solar power generator and water treatment system ownership perspective of the respon-
dents residing in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
Solar power generator Water treatment system
Responded Responded Did not Responded Responded Did not

Question yes (%) no (%) answer (%) yes (%) no (%) answer (%)
Existing in the community? 82.9 17.1 – 52.9 44.3 2.8
Own one? 74.3 25.7 – 35.7 60.0 4.3
Need one? 94.3 2.9 2.8 94.3 1.4 4.3
Like to own one? 98.6 — 1.4 94.3 1.4 4.3

that 98.6% and 94.3% of the respondents wanted solar power generators and water treatment
system, respectively, for their communities. In addition to the reasons they gave when they were
asked if they needed these systems, they gave the following reasons for wanting them: (1) it will
be helpful for the community to become successful and progressive, (2) everyone needs light,
especially at night, and (3) it would be easier to energize appliances. As for wanting a water
treatment system, their responses were (1) to avoid waterborne diseases, (2) to understand the
step-by-step treatment process of the system, and (3) to have permanent drinking water sources
on the island. These responses suggest that the residents were willing to have more solar power
generators and water treatment systems for their communities.
A series of questions regarding the willingness of the residents to gain knowledge about the
proposed systems were asked. Relevant responses are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. When
asked if they were willing to learn about how solar power generators and water treatment systems
work, 95.7% and 97.1% of the respondents said that they were willing. Taking the question
further, their willingness to receive training on the installation and O&M of the proposed systems
was also asked. Out of 70 respondents, 92.9% and 81.4% were willing to receive training on the
installation of solar power generators and water treatment systems for their communities, respec-
tively. They were willing to receive training on solar power generator installation for 4.7 h/day
for 6 days while 4.2 h/day for 5 days for the installation of a water treatment system. Therefore,
training on the building and installation of these systems should be designed such that they will
be undertaken for 1 week. As for the O&M training, 85.7% said they were willing to receive the
training for solar power generator, and 75.7% were willing to receive the training for the water
treatment system. The respondents said that they were willing to receive solar power generator
and water treatment system O&M training for 4.6 h/day for 5 and 4 days, respectively. The same
percentages of the respondents recommend that the O&M training will be done within 1 week.
The respondents were also asked if they were willing to do voluntary O&M, that is, without
monetary compensation, should they have communal solar power generators and water treatment
Table 5 Perspectives on knowledge transfer about solar power generator and water treatment
system of respondents residing in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
Solar power generator Water treatment system
Did not Did not

Responded Responded answer Responded Responded answer
Question yes (%) no (%) (%) yes (%) no (%) (%)
Willing to learn? 95.7 1.4 2.9 97.1 2.9 —
Willing to receive installation 92.9 4.3 2.8 81.4 8.6 10.0

training?
Willing to receive O&M training? 85.7 8.6 5.7 75.7 14.3 10.0
Willing to do voluntary O&M? 87.1 1.4 11.5 82.9 8.6 8.5
Table 6 Preferred solar power generator and water treatment system training durations of the
respondents residing in Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
Average training time For solar power generator For water treatment system
Building and installation
• No. of days 6 5
• No. of hours/day 4.7 4.2
Operation and maintenance
• No. of days 5 4
• No. of hours/day 4.6 4.6

systems. The respondents who said yes to the solar power generator and to water treatment
system were 87.1% and 82.9%, respectively. Therefore, the residents may not need to spend
money on manpower cost for the O&M of these systems, if they want to have them in the
future.
In summary, the survey results presented in this subsection signify that the solar power gen-
erator and water treatment system are socially accepted by the residents.
3.4 Recommendations
As the coliform detection results reported here were gathered only during the monsoon season
(September 2018), seasonal variation of coliform counts in water7,8,11,15 from the tested sites need
to be investigated in future research work. Additionally, since tropical cyclones frequently hit
the Philippines, in the past, it was found that these could affect coliform count in water
point sources.12–14 Hence, regular water quality assessment most especially during the monsoon
season needs to be conducted. It may be done every month for a year7,8 up to 3 years,14 as
recommended in previous literature.
Most of the cited literature on water quality assessment included an analysis of physico-
chemical properties of water samples.6–11,13,15 It is also necessary to investigate these properties
so that the design of the solar-powered water treatment system can be made suitable for the water
conditions in the study area. Moreover, there could be an interplay among the physico-chemical
properties, the microbial condition of the water point sources, and the season when the water
sampling is conducted that needs to be confirmed.13 Hence, future work should also involve
physico-chemical analysis of water quality in Panobolon Island.
To implement a fully sustainable solar-powered UV-LED water treatment system, other
aspects such as the economic viability as compared with other existing technical solutions, pub-
lic health, cultural, political, and environmental sustainability should be also explored in the
future and may be patterned after existing literature when studying these aspects in other loca-
tions in the Philippines.16,17,65
4 Conclusion
On a laboratory scale, the CIGS TFPV panel-powered UV-LED system successfully inactivated
E. coli suspended in a buffer solution at various dilutions. Although the light source used for
simulating solar power was continuous and immobile, some variations in fluence inactivation
rate were observed from the independent trials. Thus, for an outdoor setting, regardless of
whether the sky is clear or cloudy, the power delivered to the UV-LEDs by the solar panel should
be regulated.
All water point sources tested positive for E. coli and other coliform contamination during the
monsoon season. Hence, the sites tested will need a microbial water treatment system to make
the water potable. In addition, turbidity measurements of water samples acquired from seven
sites revealed that it is technically feasible to use UV-LEDs for deep well microbial inactivation.
Survey results revealed that the residents of Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras,
Philippines, need solar-powered water treatment systems and that they are willing to receive
training for building, operating, and maintaining these systems.
Moving forward, the authors of this paper are working on the development of a small-scale
solar-powered UV-LED water treatment system prototype intended for off-the-grid islands in the
Philippines. They also intend to conduct water point source quality assessment in Panobolon
Island during the dry season.
5 Appendix
Figure 12 shows the actual lab-scale CIGS TFPV-powered UV-LED setup used for E. coli inac-
tivation, as described in Sec. 2.1.1.
Also below is the list of questions inquired from the residents of Panobolon Island, who
volunteered to participate in the survey. Here, numbers starting with I, II, and III correspond

Fig. 12 Photo of the (a) UV-LED apparatus intended to irradiate the (b) sample dish and powered
by (c) 1-m2 CIGS TFPV panel to be irradiated with (d) continuous 500-W halogen lamp
illumination.
to the questions about the community statistics, the solar-powered generator system, and the
water treatment system, respectively.
I-1 How many members are there in your household?
I-2 How much do you earn per month?
I-3 How do you generate your household electricity/power supply (for appliances)?
I-4 If you answered “From solar power” in number 3, what is the maximum capacity of
your solar power system?
I-5 If you are using electricity/power supply, how much do you spend for it per month?
I-6 Where do you get your drinking water?
I-7 In your household, what treatment method(s) do you use to sanitize your water and
make it drinkable?
I-8 How much do you spend for drinking water per month?
I-9 How satisfied are you about the quality of the water you are drinking?
I-10 Did you know that the bacteria present in drinking water may cause waterborne
diseases?
I-11 Did you know that heavy metals like lead, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, and fluoride
in water may cause various type of cancer?
I-12 Have you ever had any of these waterborne diseases before?
I-13 If you never had any of waterborne diseases before, (a) are you aware of these dis-
eases? (b) Are you threatened by these diseases?
I-14 If you had any waterborne disease before, how frequent did you have it?
I-15 If you had any waterborne disease before, (a) how did you find out about it? (b) Did
you know the cause? If yes, what was/were the cause(s)? (c) How did you treat it?
I-16 In a year, how much access do you have to the following biomass wastes?
(a) Coconut shell; (b) Banana peels; (c) Mandarin-orange peels.
II-1 Is there any existing solar-powered generator system in your community?
II-2 Is there any solar-powered generator system in your household?
II-3 In your opinion, does your community need to install a solar-powered generator
system? Why/why not?
II-4 Would you like to have a solar-powered generator system installed for your commu-
nity? Why/why not?
II-5 If you answered “yes” in nos. 3 and/or 4, (a) how much would you be willing to
contribute initially to have a solar-powered generator system installed in your com-
munity? (b) How much would you be willing to contribute monthly to maintain the
solar-powered generator system that would be installed in your community?
II-6 Are you willing to learn about how the solar-powered generator system operates?
II-7 Are you willing to receive training on how to install/build the solar-powered gener-
ator system?

II-8 If you answered “yes” in no. 7, (a) how many days are you willing to spend on train-
ing how to install/build the solar-powered generator system? (b) How many hours are
you willing to spend per day on training how to install/build the solar-powered gen-
erator system?
II-9 Are you willing to receive training on how to operate and maintain the solar-powered
generator system?
II-10 If you answered “yes” in no. 9, (a) how many hours are you willing to spend on
training how to operate and maintain the solar-powered generator system for your
community? (b) How many hours are you willing to spend per day on training how
to operate and maintain the solar-powered generator system for your community?
(c) Are you willing to work voluntarily (i.e., no monetary compensation) for oper-
ation and maintenance of the solar-powered generator system for your community?
III-1 Is there any existing water treatment system in your community?
III-2 Is there any water treatment system in your household?
III-3 In your opinion, does your community need to install a water treatment system?
III-4 Would you like to have a water treatment system installed for your community?
III-5 If you answered “yes” in nos. 3 and/or 4 (a) how much would you be willing to
contribute initially to have a water treatment system installed in your community?
(b) How much would you be willing to contribute monthly to maintain the water
treatment system that would be installed in your community?
III-6 Are you willing to learn about how the water treatment system operates?
III-7 Are you willing to receive training on how to install/build the water treatment system?
III-8 If you answered “yes” in no. 7, (a) how many days are you willing to spend on train-
ing how to install/build the water treatment system? (b) How many hours are you
willing to spend per day on training how to install/build the water treatment system?
III-9 Are you willing to receive training on how to operate and maintain the water treat-
ment system?
III-10 If you answered “yes” in no. 9, (a) how many hours are you willing to spend on
training how to operate and maintain the water treatment system for your community?
(b) How many hours are you willing to spend per day on training how to operate and
maintain the water treatment system for your community? (c) Are you willing to work
voluntarily (i.e., no monetary compensation) for operation and maintenance of the
water treatment system for your community?
In Table 7, a summary of the turbidity measurements of samples acquired from nine deep
wells in Panobolon Island is shown.
Table 7 Turbidity measurements of samples acquired from nine water point sources of
Panobolon Island, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, Philippines.
Turbidity (NTU)
Site # Sample 1 Sample 2 Mean
1 0.57 0.56 0.56
2 36.61 36.62 36.61
3 1.43 1.44 1.43
4 1.98 1.97 1.97
5 3.36 3.40 3.38
6 18.79 18.59 18.69
7 1.96 1.89 1.92
8 1.59 1.62 1.61
9 1.38 1.39 1.39

Acknowledgments
This study was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research 17H03329) and the University of Tokyo GAP Fund 2018. The authors would
like to thank Dr. Yoshitaka Okada and Dr. Nazmul Ahsan (University of Tokyo) for the photo-
voltaic panel integration, Joemil Aguado, Michael John Aro, Novan Lomigo, and Athenes Joy
Presno-Aban (Philippine Science High School, Western Visayas Campus) for helping with the
water point source sampling, Hon. Cirilo Norico (Village Hall), Rogelia Moleta, and Nadia
Talagon (Panobolon Elementary School) for the logistics provided during sampling and survey
questioning and the residents of Panobolon Island, Guimaras, Philippines, who volunteered to
participate in the survey questioning. The authors declare no competing financial interests or
other potential conflicts of interests.
References
1. American Public Health Association, and American Water Works Association, Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health
Association, Washington (1989).
2. A. P. Dufour, “Escherichia coli: the fecal coliform,” in Bacterial Indicators/Health Hazards
Associated with Water, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (1977).
3. P. M. Griffin and R. V. Tauxe, “The epidemiology of infections caused by Escherichia coli
O157: H7, other enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and the associated hemolytic uremic syn-
drome,” Epidemiol. Rev. 13(1), 60–98 (1991).
4. R. B. Sack et al., “Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli isolated from patients with severe
cholera-like disease,” J. Infect. Dis. 123(4), 378–385 (1971).
5. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Volume 3 – Surveil-
lance and Control of Community Supplies, World Health Organization, Geneva (1997).
6. J. F. Kamanula, O. J. Zambasa, and W. R. Masamba, “Quality of drinking water and cholera
prevalence in Ndirande Township, City of Blantyre, Malawi,” Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/
C 72–75, 61–67 (2014).
7. M. Pritchard, T. Mkandawire, and J. G. O’Neill, “Assessment of groundwater quality in
shallow wells within the southern districts of Malawi,” Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C
33(8–13), 812–823 (2008).
8. M. Pritchard, T. Mkandawire, and J. G. O’Neill, “Biological, chemical and physical drink-
ing water quality from shallow wells in Malawi: Case study of Blantyre, Chiradzulu and
Mulanje,” Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 32(15–18), 1167–1177 (2007).
9. N. A. G. Moyo, “An analysis of the chemical and microbiological quality of ground water from
boreholes and shallow wells in Zimbabwe,” Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 66, 27–32 (2013).
10. H. Wanke et al., “Hand dug wells in Namibia: an underestimated water source or a threat to
human health?” Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 76, 104–113 (2014).
11. T. T. B. Martin et al., “Physico-chemical and Bacteriological Water Quality Evaluation of
the Four Tributaries in Mt. Matutum Protected Landscape (MMPL), South Cotabato,
Philippines,” J. Eng. Environ. Agric. Res. 1, 24–33 (2018).
12. J. M. Patrick, Recommendations for at-risk Water Supplies in Capiz Province, Philippines:
Using Water Source and Community Assessments, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge (2010).
13. I. Lantin-Olaguer et al., “Seasonal changes and coliform load of Jalaur River, Province of
Iloilo, Panay Island, Philippines,” Silliman J. 51(1), 247–264 (2010).
14. F. Y. Guarin, “Water quality management issues in Lingayen Gulf, Philippines and some
proposed solutions,” Mar. Pollut. Bull. 23, 19–23 (1991).
15. A. J. Lagbas and C. D. Habito, “Water quality of traditional communal drinking wells: the
case of a fishing community in Panukulan, Polillo Island, Quezon, Philippines,” J. Nat. Stud.
15(1), 41–57 (2016).
16. A. J. Lagbas, “Socio-economics, health profile, environmental problems, and perception of
a fishing community in Panukulan, Polillo Island, Quezon, Philippines,” J. Manage. Dev.
Stud. 5(3), 33–54 (2016).

17. L. T. J. Ong, D. Storey, and J. Minnery, “Beyond the beach: balancing environmental and
socio-cultural sustainability in Boracay, the Philippines,” Tourism Geogr. 13(4), 549–569
(2011).
18. P. M. Angus, Jr. and D. T. Jaque, “Bantayan Island water resources study,” WIT Trans. Ecol.
Environ. 12, 111–120 (1996).
19. I. L. A. Bautista and L. M. O. Lim, “Assessment of drinking water quality in Tingloy island
through multiple tube fermentation,” LPU-Laguna J. Allied Med. 3(1), 80–104 (2018).
20. E. C. Lozada, “The quality of drinking water in an upland and a coastal barangay in Sibunag,
Guimaras Island,” MS Food Science thesis, College of Home Economics, University of the
Philippines (2001).
21. Provincial Government of Guimaras, Philippines and PEMSEA, State of the Coasts of
Guimaras Province, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
(PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines, http://pemsea.org/sites/default/files/soc-guimaras_0
.pdf (2012).
22. T. Asano et al., “Disinfection processes for water reuse applications,” Chapter 11 in Water
Reuse. Issues, Technologies and Applications, 1st ed., Metcalf and Eddy; McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc., New York (2006).
23. J. K. Edzwald, “Overview of water treatment processes,” Chapter 5 in Water Quality and
Treatment A Handbook on Drinking Water, McGraw Hill, New York (2011).
24. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “Long‐term 2 enhanced surface water
treatment rule,” Fed. Reg. 68, 47640 (2003).
25. R. L. Wolfe, “Ultraviolet disinfection of potable water,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 24(6),
768–773 (1990).
26. S. Vilhunen and M. Sillanpää, “Recent developments in photochemical and chemical
AOPs in water treatment: a mini-review,” Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 9(4), 323–330
(2010).
27. M. P. V. Azanza et al., “Decimal reduction times of Pyrodinium bahamense var. compressum
and Escherichia coli in chlorine and ultraviolet-treated seawater,” Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
33(5), 371–376 (2001).
28. K. Oguma et al., “Application of UV light emitting diodes to batch and flow-through water
disinfection systems,” Desalination 328, 24–30 (2013).
29. K. Oguma, R. Surapong, and J. R. Bolton, “Application of UV light-emitting diodes to
adenovirus in water,” J. Environ. Eng. 142(3), 04015082 (2015).
30. S. H. Mohr et al., “Projection of world fossil fuels by country,” Fuel 141, 120–135
(2015).
31. S. Solomon et al., Ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (2007).
32. J. Beyer et al., “Environmental effects of the deepwater horizon oil spill: a review,” Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 110(1), 28–51 (2016).
33. M. J. Rowell, “The effect of crude oil spills on soils. A review of literature,” in The
Reclamation of Agricultural Soils After Oil Spills,” J. A. Toogood Ed., pp. 1–33,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, (1977).
34. M. A. Green, “Third generation photovoltaics: ultra‐high conversion efficiency at low cost,”
Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 9(2), 123–135 (2001).
35. M. Powalla et al., “Advances in cost-efficient thin-film photovoltaics based on Cu(In, Ga)
Se2,” Engineering 3(4), 445–451 (2017).
36. Y. Tang, “Copper indium gallium selenide thin film solar cells,” in Nanostructured Solar
Cells, N. Das, Ed., IntechOpen, London (2017).
37. W. Lin and K. E. Benson, “Silicon crystal growth,” in Microelectronic Materials and
Processes, R. A. Levy, Ed., pp. 1–6, Springer Science & Business Media, Netherlands,
Vol. 164 (2012).
38. J. Ramanujam and U. P. Singh, “Copper indium gallium selenide based solar cells: a
review,” Energy Environ. Sci. 10(6), 1306–1319 (2017).
39. V. K. Kapur et al., “Roadmap for manufacturing cost competitive CIGS modules,” in Proc.
IEEE 38th Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (PVSC-38), 3343–3348 (2012).

40. R. Carron et al., “Refractive indices of layers and optical simulations of Cu(In, Ga)Se2 solar
cells,” Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 19, 396–410 (2018).
41. ASTM Standard Reference Spectra G173-03, “Standard tables for reference solar spectral
irradiances: direct normal and hemispherical on 37° tilted surface,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (2012).
42. K. Oguma, H. Katayama, and S. Ohgaki, “Photoreactivation of Escherichia coli after low-or
medium-pressure UV disinfection determined by an endonuclease sensitive site assay,”
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68(12), 6029–6035 (2002).
43. K. Oguma, H. Katayama, and S. Ohgaki, “Spectral impact of inactivating light on photo-
reactivation of Escherichia coli,” J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 4, S1–S6 (2005).
44. J. E. Cronan, “Escherichia coli as an experimental organism,” eLS, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(2014).
45. J. R. Bolton and K. G. Linden, “Standardization of methods for fluence (UV dose) deter-
mination in bench-scale UV experiments,” J. Environ. Eng. 129(3) 209–215 (2003).
46. W. A. M. Hijnen, E. F. Beerendonk, and G. J. Medema, “Inactivation credit of UV radiation for
viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: a review,” Water Res. 40(1) 3–22 (2006).
47. Coastal Environment Profile (CEP), Municipality of Nueva Valencia, Province of Guimaras,
Philippines, http://www.guimaras.gov.ph/images/MunicipalityProfile/CEP__Nueva_Valencia
.pdf
48. United Nations Treasury, “UN operational rates of exchange,” December 2018, https://
treasury.un.org/operationalrates/OperationalRates.php.
49. E.W. Rice, R.B. Baird, and A.D. Eaton, Eds., Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, Vol. 23, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC (2017).
50. B. M. F. Yu Jeco, Y. Hosoi, and K. Oguma, “Solar-powered ultraviolet light-emitting diodes
(UV-LED) for inactivation of Escherichia coli in water,” in Proc. 53rd Jpn Soc. Water
Environ. (JSWE) (2019).
51. J. Bartram and R. Ballance, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment
Programme, “Microbiological analyses,” Chapter 10 in Water Quality Monitoring: A
Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Freshwater Quality Studies and
Monitoring Programs, E & FN Spon, London; New York (1996).
52. O. Dupré, R. Vaillon, and M. A. Green, “Temperature coefficients of photovoltaic devices,”
Chapter 2 in Thermal Behavior of Photovoltaic Devices– Physics and Engineering,
Springer, Cham (2017).
53. S. Rattanakul and K. Oguma, “Inactivation kinetics and efficiencies of UV-LEDs against
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Legionella pneumophila, and surrogate microorganisms,” Water
Res. 130, 31–37 (2018).
54. E. C. Kern, E. M. Gulachenski, and G. A. Kern, “Cloud effects on distributed photovoltaic
generation: slow transients at the Gardner, Massachusetts photovoltaic experiment,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers. 4(2), 184–190 (1989).
55. A. McEvoy, T. Markvart, and L. Castener, Eds., Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics:
Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed., Elsevier, New York (2011).
56. M. Hankins, Stand-alone Solar Electric Systems: The Earthscan Expert Handbook for
Planning, Design and Installation, Routledge, Boca Raton, Florida (2010).
57. Weather Division, Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration (PAGASA), “Typhoon Ompong (Mangkhut/1822) Summary Report,”
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Philippines, 20 September 2018,
https://pubfiles.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/tamss/weather/tc_summary/TY_Ompong_MANGKHUT_
2018.pdf (accessed 3 May 2019).
58. A. P. Blaschke et al., “Setback distances between small biological wastewater treatment
systems and drinking water wells against virus contamination in alluvial aquifers,” Sci.
Total Environ. 573, 278–289 (2016).
59. J. Christensen and K. G. Linden, “How particles affect UV light in the UV disinfection of
unfiltered drinking water,” J. Am. Water Works Assn. 95(4), 179–189 (2003).
60. World Health Organization, “Water quality and health-review of turbidity: information
for regulators and water suppliers,” WHO/FWC/WSH/17.01, 2 February 2017, https://
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/turbidity-information-200217.pdf

61. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Ultraviolet Disinfection
Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,
National Service Center for Environmental Publications, Washington D.C. (2006).
62. “Guimaras Quickstat– June 2018,” Philippine Statistics Authority, https://psa.gov.ph/
content/guimaras-quickstat-june-2018.
63. Department of Energy, “Electricity consumption (sales, utility use, system loss),” 2017
Power Statistics, Philippine Power Statistics, 2018, https://www.doe.gov.ph/philippine-
power-statistics.
64. Solar Philippines, https://www.solarphilippines.ph/residential/.
65. W. J. Smith, Jr., “Drinking water issues and management in the Republic of the Philippines,”
Geog. Bull. 41(1), 8–25 (1999).
Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco is a PhD candidate at the Department of Advanced Interdisciplinary

Studies, Graduate School of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Japan. She received the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowship for Young Scientists in 2019.
She received her master of engineering degree in electrical engineering and information systems
from UT in 2017. Her current research interests include multijunction solar cells, solution-based
quantum dots, and UV-LED disinfection.
Aris C. Larroder teaches physics and research at Philippine Science High School—Western
Visayas Campus in Iloilo City. He obtained his doctor of philosophy in science education from
Tokyo University of Science under the Monbukagakusho Scholarship. He has published papers
primarily on science giftedness education, inquiry, and indigenous knowledge systems. He is
actively engaged in promoting inquiry-based science education and active learning, such as out-
door science and skywatching activities.
Kumiko Oguma is an associate professor at the Research Center for Advanced Science and
Technology, University of Tokyo, Japan. She is an expert on waterborne infectious disease con-
trol and prevention with much expertise in UV disinfection. She also works a lot on water-related
health issues in developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia. Her research focuses on
UV-LED applications for water treatment. She is currently the Asia-regional vice president of
International Ultraviolet Association.


2019 Technosocial Feasibility Analysis of Solar Powered UV LED Water Treatment System in A Remote Island of Guimaras Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2019 Technosocial Feasibility Analysis of Solar Powered UV LED Water Treatment System in A Remote Island of Guimaras Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Technosocial Feasibility Analysis of Solar Powered UV LED Water Treatment System in A Remote Island of Guimaras Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technosocial feasibility analysis of

solar-powered UV-LED water

Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco,a,b,* Aris C. Larroder,c and Kumiko Ogumab,d

Keywords: coliform; microbial inactivation; off-the-grid system; thin-film photovoltaics; ultra-

*Address all correspondence to Bernice Mae F. Yu Jeco, E-mail: yujeco@mbe.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1947-7988/2019/$28.00 © 2019 SPIE

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-1 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

2.1 Laboratory Scale Prototype Design and Testing

2.1.1 CIGS-powered UV-LED apparatus

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-2 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

2.1.2 Preparation and enumeration of E. coli

2.1.3 Radiation biodosimetry

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-3 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

where Ct is the CFU per unit volume at t and C0 is the CFU at t ¼ 0 s .

2.1.4 E. coli inactivation model

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e006;116;300 log SR ¼ kF FUV þ b; (6)

2.2 Study Area

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-4 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

2.3 Water Point Source Sampling in Panobolon Island

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-5 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

2.4 Questionnaire Surveys Conducted among the Residents of Panobolon

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 E. coli Inactivation using CIGS-Powered UV-LED Apparatus

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-6 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

Fluence inactivation Regression line Coefficient of Root-mean-square

1 0.398 −1.54 0.9732 0.2718

2 0.404 −1.51 0.9907 0.1608

3 0.488 −2.07 0.9966 0.1177

3.2 Coliform Detection Results of Water Point Source Sampling in

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-7 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

5 Too many to count Too many to count

6 Too many to count Too many to count

3.3 Survey Responses of Panobolon Island Residents

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-8 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

3.3.1 Community resource statistics

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-9 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-10 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-Photonics-for-Energy on 10 Jul 2019

Table 3 Waterborne disease awareness of the respondents residing in Panobolon Island,

Responded Responded Did not

Aware of bacteria in water? 54.3 42.9 2.9

Among those who had waterborne disease:

• Root cause known? 32.9 17.1 50.0

Among those who never had waterborne disease:

• Aware of waterborne diseases? 55.7 28.6 15.7

• Threatened by waterborne diseases? 38.6 22.9 38.5

Journal of Photonics for Energy 043105-11 Oct–Dec 2019 • Vol. 9(4)