MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH CLINIC LAS MERCEDES HONDURAS

MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH CLINIC LAS MERCEDES, HONDURAS Preliminary Design (30%) January 27, 2009 Janelle Barth, Stephanie Chang, Walter Li, Greer Mackebee

road: church side field side

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Weighting Criteria Constructability: Is it easy to build? Will we need more materials? Bricks, wood, or tin? Is it easy to access/install the solar panel? Access to water source: How much piping (and labor) will be needed to obtain fresh water Access to sewage disposal: How much piping (and labor) will be needed to dispose of sewage properly? Will it even be possible to dispose of it properly from location of kitchen? Ventilation: Can air flow easily in AND out of the building? Are there obstructions?

Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) in the Las Mercedes Primary school Adobe bricks

Structural Design Decision Matrix 0. 2 0. 35 0. 15 1 Option Constructability Access to water source Access to sewage disposal Ventilation Weighted Total 1) kitchen on side, gable 7 8 8 5 7. 35 2) kitchen in back, gable 7 10 5 10 7. 65 3) kitchen on side, single pitch 9 8 8 5 7. 75 4) kitchen in back, single pitch 9 10 5 10 8. 05

Decisions Made So Far Optimal location: lowest area on site slope change is minimal needs for clinic limit our choices of location (because of size) Optimal size, dimensions: 30’x 70’ fits necessary lodging, kitchen, medical needs rectangle allows for more sunlight, ventilation fits topographical lines more appropriately

Farmer’s crops right next to clinic site

Next Steps Ventilation system to prevent spread of airborne disease: Wind tunnel? Fans in windows Screen in windows

Next Steps Internal structure (layout of rooms) Preferably at least one large room for serving as a community meeting-place or treating large groups of people Bedroom for full-year nurse staffer Office with laptops for keeping records, refrigerator for short-term storage of vaccines/medications Smaller exam rooms (1 -2? ) for private treatment or curtain/other dividers for the large room Dormitory for volunteers (8 bunk beds? ) Waiting room (? ) Simple “kitchen” with smoke-diverting wood-burning stove (? )

WATER SYSTEMS

Water Path Water from stream (in the tank) Physical Filter Back into the Environment Waste Removal System Blackwater Latrine Waste Disinfection / Treatment Graywater Clinic Use

Two Areas of Interest 1. Water Purification Needs to be effective 2. Filter particles Treat water for diseases Should be low cost Should be possible to construct with locally available materials Needs to be easy to maintain Waste Management Must effectively contain harmful materials Should be low maintenance Cannot require any unavailable technologies Soil permeability can be found through percolation

Water Purification System

Ultraviolet Disinfection Equipment: UV bulb, quartz sleeve Effectiveness: 1 -log reduction of Giardia, 4 -log reduction of viruses, effective for Cryptosporidium Cost: US$ 80 -300 Lifetime: bulb lasts 10 to 12 months Maintenance: replace bulbs; check quartz sleeve every 6 months; monitor for scaling and overall effectiveness

Ultraviolet Disinfection Pros: Capable of disinfecting water faster than chlorine No cumbersome retention tanks or potentially harmful materials Cost effective No residual effect (change in water taste, odor, p. H, or conductivity) “Operator friendly” Cons: Doesn’t remove dissolved organics, inorganic compounds, or particles in the water Needs electricity Bulb needs to be replaced every 1012 months; old bulbs need proper disposal Replacement of parts Bulbs – every 10 -12 months (need proper disposal) Ballast – 10 years Quartz sleeve – 5 years More difficult equipment repair and regular cleaning required

UV Disinfection Factors that reduce UV disinfection effectiveness include: Iron manganese Total dissolved solids (TDS) Turbidity (inability of light to travel through water) Suspended solids May need to be used in conjunction with another filtration system (possibly a membrane or sandgravel system)

Chlorine Pros: Can be cheap (only need tablets, pump, tank for water storage, filter) Very effective at fighting E. coli Somewhat easy to maintain Electricity not necessarily required Upstream treatment possible for school and Regino’s house because of residual Cons: Chemical dosing hard to regulate Possible to overdose the water Would require another type of purification to remove excess chlorine Pressures must be dealt with (might require a separate pump system) Unreliable in fighting Giardia Undesirable taste Requires purchase of chlorine

Evaluation of Treatment Options 0. 4 Technology 0. 1 Effectiveness Low Cost 0. 3 0. 2 1 Ease of Locally Avail. Weighted Total Maint. UV disinfection 10 2 7 1 6. 5 Chlorination 8 5 5 2 5. 6

Waste System

Percolation

Percolation

Septic Tank / Aqua Privy Pros: Most efficient Water tight Very sanitary if functioning properly Cons: Sludge from tank must be emptied mechanically every 1 to 5 years Needs lots of area to function Uses a high volume of water per flush Regular maintenance unavailable

Offset Single Pit Toilet Pros: Versatile Inexpensive to construct and maintain (only has to be cleaned daily with some water and disinfectant) Sludge can be used as fertilizer after being buried Cons: If not cleaned properly, risk of disease and groundwater contamination Must be reconstructed annually in a different location Possible for the pipe (U-trap) to become blocked, rendering the whole system unusable Toilet paper and other bulky materials cannot be used Must be 6 meters away from building; cannot be indoor

Offset Double Pit Toilet Pros: Very versatile Safer pit sludge Inexpensive (US$ 75212) Sludge can be used as a fertilizer No need for yearly reconstruction (while one pit is full and decomposing, the other pit is in use) Water Seal Cons: Similar to those for single pit

Offset Double Pit Toilet

Compost Latrine Pros: Produces fertilizer Vaults don’t have to be moved (like in the Offset Double Pit Latrine) Capable of decomposing most household waste, also Easy to install Cons: More expensive than Pour-Flush systems Grass, weeds, or sawdust must be added daily to reduce odor Must be dosed with disinfectant daily Floor must be scrubbed daily

Simple Pit Latrine Pros: Very cheap Very easy to build Cons: Not sustainable (must be moved to a new site after a year) Bad odor Uncomfortable No seal

Evaluation of Waste Disposal Options 1 0. 15 0. 05 0. 25 0. 09 0. 23 Technology Effectiveness Low Cost Ease of Maint. Locally Avail. Installation Sustainability Weighted Total Septic System 9 3 2 7 4 8 5. 39 Compost Latrine 6 6 4 10 9 6 6. 55 Aqua Privy 8 3 2 7 5 8 5. 47 Offset Double Pit Toilet 8 8 6 10 8 6 7. 22 Offset Single Pit Toilet 6 9 5 10 9 5 6. 72 Simple Pit Latrine 5 9 5 10 9 2 5. 88

Moving Forward: Concerns Location? The waste removal system needs enough water to keep “things” moving Proximity to agriculture / water Amount of power necessary for the UV filtration system Reasons for pit latrine failure: Soil incapable of absorbing water High water table Pit collapse No water available Housing structure damaged Improper maintenance

PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEM

Determining System Capacity Depends on appliance load Known appliances Electric lighting 2 -3 laptops Refrigerator (? ) for vaccines, medicines Electric fan (? ) Possibly UV water purification system Be prepared for extra appliances (medical equipment? )

Appliance Evaluation Criteria Cost – how expensive? Performance – can it reliably maintain a proper temperature for vaccine/medication/diagnostic sample storage? Power consumption – how much power does it draw? Availability – can we get how much will it from incountry or regionally at about the same cost? Durability – how long will it last? (may not be an important criterion)

Refrigeration Electrolux 50 DC fridge BP Solar VR 50 (38 liters/5 liters) Sun. Frost 51/34 Sun. Danzer 51 liters GE Small Fridge 48 liters Computer Inveneo Netbook Cost Performance Power consumption Weighted Total 0. 2 0. 3 0. 5 1 5 6 2 3. 8 2 9 6 6. 1 3 8 8 7 9 3 9 7. 2 10 3 3 4. 4 0. 2 ? 0. 8 1 5 ? 7 6. 6 9 ? 10 9. 8

Next Steps Rate appliances on other criteria; reevaluate decisions Add other appliance types Lighting UV purification Fan

Next Steps 1. 2. Confirming necessary/desired appliances with Dr. Clements (by 2/3) Calculate system component specifications (by 2/10) 3. 4. Preliminary mounting design (by 2/17) Identify parts and suppliers (by 2/24) 5. 6. Crystalline silicon PV panels (cheapest, but not necessarily most efficient) Charge controller Deep-cycle battery Inverter (conversion from DC to AC for laptops) Check calculations with Dr. Paul Klenk of the ECE department Work out transportation/shipping logistics (by 3/10) Estimate costs (by 2/24) Final system design and possible prototype/testing (by 3/31)