Chemical Dust Suppressants Outperform Water, But Raise Health and Environmental Concerns
A Delhi study showed chemical dust suppressants are 50-60% more effective and last six hours, versus water's 25-30% efficacy and 10-15 minutes. While efficient and potentially cost-effective, experts raise significant concerns. Disadvantages include potential public health risks like respiratory irritation, hazardous environmental impacts on soil and water, and reduced efficacy in high-traffic areas. Consequently, their widespread use is limited, with application restricted to low-disturbance zones due to these caveats.
A study commissioned by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in 2018 highlighted that chemical dust suppressants are significantly more effective than water in reducing particulate matter, a major contributor to Delhi's air pollution. Conducted by Enviro Policy Research India (EPRI) and NEERI, the research found chemical suppressants achieved 50-60% efficacy, with effects lasting around six hours. In contrast, water sprinkling, the commonly used method, showed only 25-30% efficacy, lasting merely 10-15 minutes before evaporation. Economically, chemicals also appear advantageous, costing roughly Rs 100 for a 100 sq m area over six hours, compared to water's Rs 2,160 for the same period due to multiple applications.However, widespread adoption is limited by critical drawbacks. Experts raise serious concerns regarding public health, citing potential mild respiratory or skin irritation from chemical exposure, and significant environmental impacts on soil quality, groundwater, and vegetation if applied without proper regulation. Furthermore, the efficacy of chemical suppressants, which form a thin surface layer, drastically reduces in areas with vehicle or heavy foot traffic as the layer breaks. Consequently, while potent, these chemicals are currently used only in limited pockets of Delhi where minimal disturbance occurs. Authorities like the CPCB and NEERI stress that their use must be 'judicious,' site-specific, and backed by regular monitoring, emphasizing they are not harmless and cannot replace fundamental dust containment measures. Long-term impact studies are also still needed.
