| Literature DB >> 30218901 |
S Septien1, J Pocock2, L Teba3, K Velkushanova3, C A Buckley3.
Abstract
This work aims at characterizing the rheological properties of faecal sludge from Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrines and their implication on pit emptying. Faecal sludge was sampled from 3 pit latrines located in the eThekwini Municipality (Durban, South Africa). Samples were taken at different positions within the pit. For each of the samples, measurements in the rheometer in triplicates were performed in order to determine their rheological properties, and their moisture and ash content were measured also in triplicates. Experiments in the rheometer were performed for samples for which its moisture content was modified. In order to better understand the influence of water addition into the pit. During pit emptying, calculations were carried out from the experimental data, based in the criteria set in the Omni-Ingestor initiative, carried out by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Faecal sludge exhibited a shear thinning behaviour, i.e. a decrease in viscosity with increasing shear rate, and presented a yield stress comprised between 500 to 1000 Pa. This needs to be surpassed in order to overcome the elastic resistance of the sludge to flow. Similar viscosities were found for the samples from the different pits, irrespective of the position within the pit, except for the sample from the bottom of one of the pits for which it was not possible to induce a flow. This sample had a considerably lower moisture content (67% wet basis) compared to the other samples (around 80% wet basis), probably due to a higher biodegradation as it was the most aged sludge in the pit. According to the experimental results and calculations, the pumping requirements during pit emptying will decrease drastically by increasing the moisture content of the sludge. The addition of water into the pit would then facilitate the pit emptying operation by reducing the head and power required for pumping. However, this practice would require employing considerable amounts of water and handling higher volumes of sludge, which would lead to longer pit emptying times and increase the difficulty of the operation. For example, increasing the moisture content of the sludge from 75 to 90% will reduce the head and power of the pump by a factor 100, but will triplicate the amount of water in the sludge and, consequently, the time for pit emptying. Therefore, a compromise has to be made between increasing the pumping feasibility and adding water to the pit.Entities:
Keywords: Faecal sludge; Pit emptying rheology; Shear-thinning; VIP latrines; Yield stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30218901 PMCID: PMC6189870 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.098
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Manage ISSN: 0301-4797 Impact factor: 6.789
Fig. 1Scheme of the different sampling sections in the VIP latrine, after Zuma et al. (2015).
Fig. 2Procedures of pit emptying in the eThekwini municipality (a) and sampling (b).
Fig. 3Viscosity versus shear rate for faecal sludge with different moisture contents.
Fig. 4Viscosity versus shear stress for faecal sludge with different moisture contents.
Fig. 5Yield stress as a function of the faecal sludge moisture content.
Fig. 6Moisture content (a) and ash content (b) of the samples from pit 1, 2 and 3.
Fig. 7Viscosity versus shear rate for the samples from the different sections of pit 1 (a) and pit 2 (b).
Yield stress for the samples from the different sections of pit 1 and 2.
| Pit 1 | Pit 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Section 1 | 500 Pa | 800 Pa |
| Section 2 | 300 Pa | 1000 Pa |
| Section 3 | 400 Pa | 1000 Pa |
| Section 4 | 300 Pa | 600 Pa |
| Section 5 | 600 Pa | 500 Pa |
| Section 6 | 600 Pa | 900 Pa |
| Section 7 | 600 Pa | 1000 Pa |
| Section 8 | – | 900 Pa |
Fig. 8Viscosity versus shear rate for the average sludge from pit 1, pit 2 and pit 3, and for fresh faeces with a moisture content of 80.2% (Woolley et al., 2014b).
Head and energy requirements for the pumping of faecal sludge with different moisture contents after the addition of water into the pit.
| Parameters | Moisture content % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | 80 | 85 | 90 | 95 | |
| Water added (L) | 0 | 700 | 1867 | 4200 | 11,200 |
| Pit emptying time (min) | 11 | 15 | 21 | 34 | 73 |
| Head (m) | 537 | 84 | 16 | 3 | 1 |
| Power (W) | 22,000 | 3500 | 600 | 100 | 40 |