For the groundwater, the POU chlorination system was found to have the lowest cost with a net cost of 0.09 [0.05 -0.020] USD•cap -1 •yr -1 (median [5 th -95 th hereinafter]; Figure ). The next lowest cost was AgNP CWF at 0.43 [0.31 -0.65] USD•cap -1 •yr -1 . UV (mercury) lamp had a net cost of 4.96 [3.04 -10.18] USD•cap -1 •yr -1 , and the highest net cost was for UV LED which was 18.32 [10.08 -42.49] USD•cap -1 •yr -1 . The cost-effectiveness of POU chlorine treatment can be attributed to the utilization of simple and affordable materials like 20 L jerrycans and WaterGuard (NaClO) bottles, which are available at a cost ranging from 0.08 to 0.33 USD per bottle. The low cost for AgNP CWF can be attributed to the low cost of capital materials and production along with low-cost requirements for operation and maintenance. The only consumable for AgNP CWFs is the AgNP recoating which is not as frequent compared to the POU chlorination system that relies strictly on more affordable consumable NaClO. In contrast, UV systems employing mercury lamps and UV LEDs involve relatively higher costs due to requirement for more expensive materials and the consumption of electricity during operation. When comparing the two UV systems, it is observed that UV LEDs are generally more expensive than mercury lamps. However, UV LEDs offer a longer lifespan and have lower electricity requirements compared to traditional mercury lamps.