| Literature DB >> 28165378 |
Charles F C Chirwa1, Ralph P Hall2, Leigh-Anne H Krometis3, Eric A Vance4, Adam Edwards5, Ting Guan6, Rochelle H Holm7.
Abstract
Pit latrines can provide improved household sanitation, but without effective and inexpensive emptying options, they are often abandoned once full and may pose a public health threat. Emptying techniques can be difficult, as the sludge contents of each pit latrine are different. The design of effective emptying techniques (e.g., pumps) is limited by a lack of data characterizing typical in situ latrine sludge resistance. This investigation aimed to better understand the community education and technical engineering needs necessary to improve pit latrine management. In low income areas within Mzuzu city, Malawi, 300 pit latrines from three distinct areas were assessed using a dynamic cone penetrometer to quantify fecal sludge strength, and household members were surveyed to determine their knowledge of desludging procedures and practices likely to impact fecal sludge characteristics. The results demonstrate that there is a significant difference in sludge strength between lined and unlined pits within a defined area, though sludge hardened with depth, regardless of the pit type or region. There was only limited association between cone penetration depth and household survey data. To promote the adoption of pit emptying, it is recommended that households be provided with information that supports pit emptying, such as latrine construction designs, local pit emptying options, and cost. This study indicates that the use of a penetrometer test in the field prior to pit latrine emptying may facilitate the selection of appropriate pit emptying technology.Entities:
Keywords: developing countries; fecal sludge management; peri-urban; sanitation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28165378 PMCID: PMC5334663 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14020087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Dynamic cone penetrometer.
Figure 2Representative sludge strength with depth classification based on method from Seal [7].
Household sanitation practices and knowledge of pit latrine emptying (n = 300).
| Characteristic | Response Categories | Luwinga ( | Ching’ambo | Masasa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religious affiliation | Christianity | 100% | 98% | 97% |
| Muslim | - | 2% | 3% | |
| Household incidence of diarrhea within the past seven days | No | 84% | 89% | 93% |
| Yes | 16% | 11% | 7% | |
| Household waste management practices | In the pit latrine | 1% | - | - |
| In water | - | 1% | 3% | |
| Rubbish pit | 95% | 81% | 70% | |
| Surface | 4% | 18% | 27% | |
| Time over which the latrine has been in use | >2 Years | 65% | 81% | 71% |
| 1–2 Years | 30% | 19% | 29% | |
| <1 year | - | - | - | |
| Unknown | 5% | - | ||
| Method used for anal cleansing | Toilet paper/tissue only | 14% | 11% | 9% |
| Any materials other than toilet paper/tissue or water | 86% | 87% | 90% | |
| Water | - | 2% | 1% | |
| Sharing of the latrine facility with other households | Not shared | 49% | 35% | 40% |
| Shared | 51% | 65% | 60% | |
| Household option in case of a full pit latrine | Call emptying service | 15% | 17% | 3% |
| Dig another pit | 80% | 80% | 96% | |
| Use chemicals | 2% | 2% | - | |
| Use neighbor’s latrine | 3% | 1% | 1% | |
| Household knowledge of pit latrine sludge emptying | No knowledge | 35% | 16% | 12% |
| Knowledgeable | 65% | 84% | 88% | |
| Willingness to pay for emptying services | 24% | 57% | 6% |
Sludge strength based on impact count.
| Area | Number of Impacts | Mean Depth (mm) | Maximum Depth (mm) | Minimum Depth (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U | L | U | L | U | L | ||
| Luwinga ( | 5 | 100 | 451 | 533 | 647 | 20 | 143 |
| 35 | 283 | 824 | 697 | 1077 | 57 | 563 | |
| 75 | 408 | 1057 | 1268 | 1480 | 77 | 793 | |
| Ching’ambo ( | 5 | 101 | 554 | 420 | 1163 | 20 | 20 |
| 35 | 297 | 916 | 1057 | 1400 | 57 | 420 | |
| 75 | 424 | 1055 | 1287 | 1407 | 80 | 730 | |
| Masasa | 5 | 93 | 113 | 587 | 10 | ||
| 35 | 271 | 647 | 1050 | 60 | |||
| 75 | 416 | 1230 | 1206 | 80 | |||
U = Unlined; L = Lined; * In Masasa there was only one lined pit latrine.
Figure 3Average sludge strength for lined latrines and unlined latrines in areas of (a) Luwinga; (b) Ching’ambo; and (c) Masasa. Shading indicates 75th and 25th percentiles.
Figure 4Sludge strength variation with depth in areas of (a) Luwinga; (b) Ching’ambo; and (c) Masasa. Lines represent individual test results in each area.