Open Source

We believe in sharing information

We believe that sharing information and knowledge openly and transparently is crucial in the water sector as it will lead to better-informed decision-making processes and more equitable access to water resources. Therefore, we aim to publish our most important findings in this section, available for anyone to access. By doing so, we intend to improve information and data sharing within the water sector, ultimately to provide safe drinking water for the many as effectively as possible.

Our open-source project is an ongoing process. Please be advised that our research results may not be representable for the water sector as a whole or for different locations, as they reflect the results of our constrained research activities in specific areas in a certain time (2021-2022). However, we believe that our lessons learned are a good starting point for further research to build upon.

If you have any comments or feedback, would like to be involved or would like to know more details; please get in touch with us at opensource@jerrycanfilter.com.

Overview of activities

Over the past three years, we have extensively researched the feasibility of the jerrycan water filter using a variety of data-driven research methods, as described in the table below.  We carried out our research activities with a number of partners who were indispensable in the process. Our most relevant partners include Bopinc, Delft University of Technology, Aqua for All, VOx Impuls Foundation, Oxfam, Cesvi, Humanitarian Innovation Fund and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW).

We tested different versions of JERRY with 500+ households of diverse income classes in 5 countries across 3 continents. In addition, we had countless meetings with experts, startup coaches, NGOs, distributors and everyone else on the street, in the back of a taxi and other

places.

Six Main Learnings

1. Water issues are location-dependent

• Different sources, different problems
  

Households fetch water from a wide variety of sources including rivers, bore holes, rainwater harvesting, purchase from water vendors or water ATM’s. Respondents experience problems relating to both quantity (e.g. 30% of rural households we visited experience problems with the availability of drinking water) and quality of drinking water (e.g. 10% of urban households we visited experience problems with salty taste) albeit of various kinds. Each water source poses its own challenges, including salinity, turbidity, fluoride, pathogens, poor smell and taste. During our pilots, we have come across all of the above issues. The issues may even differ wildly in the same neighborhood, as water may be fetched from various sources.

• Understanding local issues is key

Most household water filters focus solely on removing pathogens and turbidity, which is not a viable solution if other pollutants (such as salts or fluoride) are present in the water source. For example, during the household trials in Rongai (Kenya), we found that households use slightly salty water, which remains salty after filtration. These participants were not interested in purchasing a water filter as it did not improve the saline taste of their drinking water. Therefore, it is important to map the local water issues before offering a solution to households, in order to find out whether the product is actually solving the issues these communities experience. This makes selection of the location for market entry and expansion of the utmost importance.

Survey results among 224 respondents in Nairobi and Kisii area (Kenya,2022).

2. Water filter market in its infancy

• Household water filters not well known

Few households we visited in Ethiopia, Kenya and Gaza, ranging from low-income consumers to (lower) middle income consumers, know about the existence of household water filters (HWTS). Furthermore, it has proven to be challenging to find points of sale for water filters in all of the above countries. As such, active marketing and product promotion is required in the first phase (1 – 5 years), to convince households of the merits of filtering their drinking water.

• Active promotion and door-to-door sales required

The water filters that are for sale, are mostly actively sold by sales agents or NGOs who go door-by-door, such as Aqua Clara Kenya. It takes a long time to gain the trust of individuals and convince people that our product is advantageous for their situation. Such a model takes patience and perseverance before sales start to trickle.

3. Purchasing power is low

• Low willingness to pay

Whereas 80% of households across rural low income, peri-urban low income and urban middle-income households indicate that they would be interested in purchasing a water filter, the ability and willingness to pay is low. We found out that the average willingness to pay (WTP) for a water filter is between €13 – €17 (Kenya) and between €6 – €13 (Ethiopia). This is further backed by household trials we conducted in the same neighborhoods as the survey.

Product trials results among 30 respondents in Gaza (2022).

4. Usability is key

• JERRY excels in ease of use

Households were generally content with installing, operating and maintaining JERRY, using it consistently throughout the household trials. For example, parents noted that children can now fetch a glass of filtered water by themselves using our device, without having to tilt a heavy jerrycan. The water is usually consumed directly after filtration which reduces chances of recontamination. Some also pump and filter an entire jerry can at once and store in it another container for later use.

• Ideal solution for emergency situations

JERRY excels in ease of installation, ease of use and quick supply of water. This is ideal as a short-term solution in emergency situations (flooding, displacements, disasters).

• Too much effort for large quantities of water

JERRY may be less applicable as long-term solution at household level due to the required effort to filter large quantities of water. Several large households indicated that pumping required too much effort for their daily need and that they preferred a system that works passively with gravity, over active pumping.

5.  Jerrycan dependency has pro’s and con’s

• Jerrycans are omnipresent
  Virtually all (97% – 100%) of the 320 households we visited in Kenya and Ethiopia own at least one jerrycan, and use this to store drinking water. Also, jerrycans in a single country are mostly the same. However, different heights and threads of jerrycans are used across different countries. In Kenya, Ethiopia, Iraq and Gaza, we discovered that different jerrycans are used in each country.

• Perceived value of jerrycans is low
  The yellow jerrycans used for drinking water are mostly second-hand cooking oil containers. These are generally perceived as having low status and are not associated with clean drinking water. Several respondents proposed that we include a custom, transparent container to improve the visual appeal.

• Not a stand-alone product
  JERRY requires an external jerrycan in the current design. This choice excludes users and organizations that do not (like to) use jerrycans, limiting the potential market size. For example, several large NGO’s do not supply jerry cans because of the bulky transport size. Adding a custom (foldable) container could solve the above points, but would increase the price and shipping costs.

6.  Innovative but challenging mechanism

• Innovative solution proven to contribute to the drinking water problem

Respondents liked the absence of having to perform maintenance (through JERRY’s integrated backwash system), in combination with a membrane filter and its small size, allowing point-of-use filtration.

• Wear and tear remain a challenge

With each pump stroke, about 100 ml. of water is filtered. During its estimated lifetime of 10.000 liters, the design needs to withstand a total of 100.000 pump strokes. We discovered during the household trials that a lot of force may be exerted on the filter, when different household members use the filter. After making numerous iterative prototypes, wear and tear of moving components and finding a long-lasting lubricant remain a challenge in our current design.

• Custom components increase price

Our current design contains several custom components, which are expensive and time-consuming to produce, especially at lower production volumes. This results in a price which is relatively high compared to alternative solutions that are made from off-the-shelf components. If designing a water filter solution, we would advise to use mainly off-the-shelf components at the piloting and initial operational phase, as this is much more resource- and time-efficient, reducing the time to market.

Transportation of filtered water in jerrycans (Nairobi, Kenya, 2022)

Conclusions

Our main goal is to develop a design, and marketing and distribution strategy to bring JERRY to market successfully. More in particular, to validate key product assumptions, identify a product-solution fit and to find a product-market fit. Based on the different research activities the following conclusions can be made on (I) the target customer, (II) current design, (III) and business case:

I: Target Customer

The target customers are benefitted by a water filter at household level, greatly improving the quality of drinking water.  However, with insufficient ability and willingness to pay (which equals our ex-works price of €12, but is less than half of the expected retail price of €30), households are simply unable to purchase a filter, which complicates the business model.

II: Design

The product was generally well-received, as participants enjoyed using JERRY and experienced health benefits after usage. However, the dependency of local jerry cans proves challenging, as the product requires an external jerrycan in the current design. This excludes users, organizations and countries that do not (like to) use jerrycans, limiting the potential market size. Furthermore, we have to conclude that large households generally prefer passive filtering solutions over JERRY, when used in households on a daily basis, as pumping requires effort. Regarding the effectiveness of JERRY, this has proven effective in reducing turbidity (from 120 NTU to 0.2 NTU) and bacteria and parasites (log5), based on laboratory tests held in 4 laboratories across three countries. But, the mechanism has also proven to be technically challenging with wear and tear and high-quality membrane filters as main challenges.

III: Business Case

We developed and tested different business models to bridge the gap between the willingness and ability to pay and our retail price, including micro-financing, carbon credits, CSR donation, Buy One Give One and cross-subsidization (funding discounted sales in one market with the profits generated by sales in another market). We see potential in these alternative income streams as add-on to our regular business model, but challenges remain on the stability and time-efficiency, in particular on the short term.

IV: Conclusion

Despite the efforts of our team and our partners, we have not found a product-market fit. We expect that identifying the target customer, and developing the design will require a considerable amount of time and resources. This in itself would not be a problem if these resources would pay for themselves in a later phase. But, in terms of the business case, we are convinced that the market for water filters among low-income consumers is challenging. Within the markets we researched, we found that customers only spend money on their health when they are desperate. This means that these customers are less likely to want to spend money on a preventive health measure such as a water filter.