Glow tech

10^th February 2010

On the 2^nd formal meeting of the 3 groups on the date stated above, all of us had attended a lecture by Glowtech, a water treatment company that Mercy Relief had engaged in the same project that we had adopted in Vietnam. The guest, Glowtech’s representative Mr Francis Lee, was contacted by Mrs Cheryl Yap and Mercy Relief to conduct a meeting during RE periods.

During the meeting, Mr Francis Lee had kindly made a PowerPoint presentation and brought his laptop to show us pictures of models of water treatment systems his company manufactures. His lecture also covers several concepts in water treatment systems, involving the constituents that comprise of a water treatment system, such as the membrane, and also the types of filtration in water treatment systems, notably via Reverse Osmosis. However the gist of his presentation was on several solutions to water treatment systems.

Although there were several treatment examples that he had mentioned, the meeting had emphazised specifically on iCycle, a portable water treatment system that is placed on a bicycle. The system works when a person cycles the bicycle which pushes the water through the system. The system, being small-range, is relatively cheap. However, it poses several issues as well.

When asked regarding the sustainability of the system, Mr Francis replied that the system should be able to work efficiently as long as the membrane of the filtration system, does not degrade. The membrane of the system is able to last for around 2-3 years. When the membrane degrades, it would be necessary to replace the membrane with a new one which is available only in Glowtech company stores since it is customised in several aspects, such as size. The system would also provide sufficient water for one household, say a family of 5.

This reduces the sustainability of the water treatment system. Since we were to install this system for the villagers, it has to be a sustainable system where the villagers are able to make use of it for as long as possible. A system that needs to be maintained every 2-3 years may be feasible but at what cost? The membrane, as quoted from Mr Francis Lee, is not cheap and may cost from half to one thousand Singapore dollars. Furthermore, the villagers have to replace the membranes with those produced by glowtech companies. This may be difficult for the villagers since glowtech companies, like many other facilities, are inaccessible as they live in a rural village, even if there is one in Quang Nam in the first place. As such, the system is not very sustainable.

Moving on, we had tried to evade the problem of cost to brainstorming of ways to be economically-efficientin out purchase of the system. Our idea was to collect donated bicycles instead of those used in iCycle in order to reduce a significant part of the cost, and perhaps use the money to buy more treatment systems. However, Mr Francis Lee mentioned that this was a problem as the system works based on the rotation of the pedals in the bicycle. This makes the system directly dependant on the gear ratio of the bicycle. Hence in order for the system to work, we have to purchase the bicycle too which costs around 100-200 Singapore dollars.

So there goes the plan to fundraise through the collection of donated bicycles. We thought that if the system works on all bicycles, we could save costs that way. But apparently, we had failed to do so and as such it would be costly for us to purchase the iCycle. A more significant problem that the iCycle would pose is to whom should we give the iCycle in the village? We couldn’t possibly be buying iCycles for all households as we do not believe that we are able to raise that much money in a year. As such iCycle may not be a viable option after all.

While we had chosen not to purchase the iCycle for distribution in Quang Nam, we would like to mention sincere gratitude towards Mr Francis Lee for facilitating our very first step towards water treatment sytems in practicality, theory, and economical terms.

NUS sharing

On the 21st of July, a team from NUS who are intending to go down to the same village in Quang Nam province, Vietnam came down to RI for a sharing session between the recce group and them.

When they arrived, the recce group shared with them on what they did during the recce trip, shared further intentions on the actual trip March next year, and showed them photos from the trip.

This was followed by a short sharing of the NUS team’s plans and intention for their trip to Vietnam. They intend to bring the Lilypad water filtration system to the village to provide them with clean drinking water, much like our initial plan. The water filtration system treats water through the UFRO system and produces water that is ready for drinking. They plan to put the machine somewhere on site and get the local community to contribute by doing the groundwork such as piping and deal with the distribution of the water.

What we realised from the sharing however was that their intention is practically identical to ours- to purchase a system to provide the village with clean drinking water. However, our target was still not as clear as we are not sure if it would be viable for us through fundraising to buy the system. The NUS team however did mention that there was a limitation to their system, that being that they are only dealing with the village’s drinking needs. They then suggested to us that maybe we could focus our project on something they would supplement theirs. For example, some of their other problems include waste management or water to wash clothes etc. They would solve the problem of our group’s project conflicting with theirs.

I think the suggestion made by the NUS group was a good one which we definitely should consider. Not only would we avoid a clash of two projects doing the same thing in the same location but it might also make it more viable for our group as to buy the water filtration system would require quite a big amount of funds and our fundraising is not raising as much money as we would like. Also, the recce group did mention that the villagers sometimes face problems of rashes as they wash their clothes in the river. A project to solve that problem would supplement NUS’ project and might be the goal we can be working for.

Founder's day sales

In the morning of the 24th of July, we set up a small stall in front of the school hall to try and sell our custom made and limited edition Raffles umbrellas to the parents and teachers who were present on RI Founder's Day. We started the day off we 3 tubes of 60 umbrellas.

We set up a table with posters describing our cause prominently displayed by the table. The set up the table right in front of the parents registration table, in an attempt to try and attract the parents' attention. However the first hour outside the hall was not very successful as we only managed to push about 5 umbrellas to teachers and parents.

With advice from Mrs Yap and Dinie, we decided to quickly move to the main atrium once the doors to the hall closed and set up our table by the main atrium, awaiting the reception after the prize giving where proud parents of prize winners and teachers would mingle while having lunch.

By about 10 am, the main atrium was full of people and we began pitching our merchandise. At first I remained at the table to keep track of umbrellas sold, the money and any other parents whose eyes happen to catch the posters. In the end however, I ended up going up to parents and teachers to sell as well, after being persuaded by Giang and Dinie.

Selling of the Raffles Umbrella was definitely much much easier than selling the Mercy Relief Pandas during ORA. When approached almost all parents would friendlily listen to what I had to say and most would buy the umbrella. Some were even willing to buy it before hearing what I had to say. Some also let us keep the change, which contributed to our funds.

At the end, we ended up selling 133 umbrellas, which I found to be an amazing number for only 1 morning of sales. It was definitely a morning well spent and it was especially rewarding when we had an awesome lunch courtesy of the founders day reception buffet.

Despite our success, we should continue working to sell the umbrellas to raise funds as these funds would be extremely useful for us to decide how exactly do we want to help the village. I will continue to try my best to sell my remaining 10 umbrellas as soon as possible :)

Singapore Polytechnic-Second Water testing

The second testing of the water samples brought back by the recce group was held on 11th July 2010. 6 of us made our way down to SP in the morning to finish the tests for COD and Ammonia.

When we arrived, we were given a brief introduction on the COD test, which was the more time consuming test to do. Firstly, we had to prepare a mix of the different samples with the COD solution. Next we had to leave the solution to heat for 3 hours. After that 3 hours we then had to put it in the machine which would give us the reading.

During the 3 hours wait, we conducted the ammonia tests on the water samples. The ammonia test was considerably simpler and faster. First we filled up the small container with the sample water. Then we put it in the machine to get the zero reading. Next we put the first reagent, mixed it, then the second reagent. After that, we put in the machine for about 3 minutes, then we record the reading.

At the end of the session, we collated our results and Dr Liu explained what the results actually mean and gave us possible reasons for our results. It turned out that we had made a mistake somewhere during the COD test and all our results were wrong and useless.

It seemed that the nitrate levels from almost all of the water samples were relatively safe for consumption, the exception being water from both wells. It was also a bit strange that the water from the river contained such little nitrates. This was strange as rivers are usually the targets for waste excretement etc. Dr Liu explained that a possible reason for this anomaly was the collection of the sample. He said the sample should be collected right in the middle, between the surface of the water and the bed. When checked with the recce trip group however, they were unsure where the water was collected from as it was collected by a villager. He also explained that a possible reason for the water sample of both wells to possess so much nitrates could be due to villagers' horses excreting near the well, or villagers dumping waste into the well.

At the end of the day, it honestly felt like a wasted day due to the unusable COD results. The COD tests were the longest tests and all of us were very careful with the tests. Yet, in the end we still overlooked something and messed up the entire test. However, looking back, the day was not entirely wasted as we did manage to complete ammonia tests and learn a little something about water standards and what is required for water to be able to be drunk.