DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of the Use of Composting Latrines and the Perceptions of Excrement in Ngäbe Communities in Panama

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Evaluation of the Use of Composting Latrines and the Perceptions of Excrement in Ngäbe Communities in Panama University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 5-8-2014 An Evaluation of the Use of Composting Latrines and the Perceptions of Excrement in Ngäbe Communities in Panama Patricia Anna Marie Wilbur University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Scholar Commons Citation Wilbur, Patricia Anna Marie, "An Evaluation of the Use of Composting Latrines and the Perceptions of Excrement in Ngäbe Communities in Panama" (2014). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5331 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Evaluation of the Use of Composting Latrines and the Perceptions of Excrement in Ngäbe Communities in Panama by Patricia A. Wilbur A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering University of South Florida Major Professor: James R. Mihelcic, Ph.D. Roberta Baer, Ph.D. Qiong Zhang, Ph.D. Date of Approval: May 8, 2014 Keywords: ecological sanitation, double vault urine diverting latrine, indigenous community, Bocas del Toro, Ñö Kribu, Millennium Development Goals Copyright © 2014, Patricia A. Wilbur DEDICATION To Brad Akers, I dedicate this work to you. You bring joy and laughter to my everyday life. Over the past four years, your support has made all of my accomplishments possible. From Madagascar to Panama, you bridged the gap. Thank you for always understanding me, even when my words do not make sense. Here’s to never having to start sentences with “I should’ve…” Most importantly, here’s to our future together. To my family and friends, you have helped me succeed in high school, college, Peace Corps, and now graduate school. Mom and Dad, you instilled in me a love of learning, a desire to see the world, and a passion to serve others. Amanda, thank you for being supportive, always showing genuine interest, and brightening my day with photos. Ray, thank you for keeping me grounded (and for sending photos as well). To family and friends that visited, I am grateful for your encouragement and the ability to have shared this experience with you. Finally, to all my friends in the States and in Panama, thank you for the overwhelming support during my Peace Corps service. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my thesis committee: Dr. James R. Mihelcic, Dr. Roberta Baer, and Dr. Qiong Zhang. Thank you, Dr. Mihelcic, for giving me guidance, support, and the opportunity to be part of the Master’s International Program at USF. Thank you, Dr. Baer, for all your time and energy as you helped an engineer ask questions about attitudes and perceptions. Thank you, Dr. Zhang, for sharing your perspective in developing my thesis. To the people of Panama, thank you for your friendship and for sharing your culture with me. I especially thank the people of Valle Escondido, the community I called home for two years in Bocas del Toro. Additionally, thank you to each community that welcomed me as I trekked across Bocas del Toro and the Comarca Ngäbe-Buglé. Thank you to the Peace Corps Panama staff, especially the Environmental Health team. To my APCD, Antonella Finis, thank you for supporting my extension and research work. To all of the PCVs that housed and accompanied me along this journey, a huge thank you goes out you, especially Kim Woods, Austin Glenn, Louis Gram, Nelly Alcantar, Jordan and Sarah Varble, Carolyn Groves, Eric Rosenfield, Andrew Butler, Kathleen Peshek, Mike Matthews, Tessa Gellerson, Abby Bryant, Colleen Hickey, Brennan Keiser, Bob Jahnke, and Maggie Melcher. To my fellow USF MI PCVs, Sarah Hayman, Sarah Watson, and Ben Yoakum, thank you for your willingness to talk about poop and composting latrines throughout my Peace Corps service. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE 0965743. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................ 7 2.1 Sanitation ................................................................................................................ 8 2.1.1 Definition of Improved Sanitation................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Sanitation Paradigms in the Developing and Developed World ................... 9 2.1.2.1 Recycling Nutrients ...................................................................... 10 2.1.2.2 Water Conservation ...................................................................... 14 2.2 Panama.................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.1 General Information..................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Disparity between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous.................................... 15 2.2.3 Ngäbes and Water, Sanitation, and Health .................................................. 17 2.3 Composting Latrines............................................................................................. 23 2.3.1 Design .......................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 Mechanisms of Pathogen Destruction ......................................................... 25 2.3.3 Proper Operation and Maintenance ............................................................. 29 2.3.4 Advantages................................................................................................... 31 2.3.5 Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 34 2.3.6 Composting Latrines in Bocas del Toro ...................................................... 38 2.3.6.1 Previous Projects........................................................................... 38 2.3.6.2 Composting Latrine in Use Percentage......................................... 39 2.4 Social Sciences Aid in the Implementation of Appropriate Sanitation Technologies......................................................................................................... 40 2.4.1 Project Failure/Disregard for Public Health Argument ............................... 44 2.4.2 Social Marketing – Drivers and Barriers ..................................................... 47 2.4.3 Perceptions of Latrines/Latrine Selection.................................................... 51 2.4.4 Perceptions of Human Excreta and its Use as Fertilizer.............................. 58 2.5 Summary............................................................................................................... 67 CHAPTER 3: METHODS............................................................................................................ 68 3.1 Composting Latrine Use ....................................................................................... 68 3.1.1 Description of Communities........................................................................ 70 i 3.1.2 Interviews..................................................................................................... 73 3.1.3 Observations ................................................................................................ 75 3.2 Likes and Dislikes of Composting Latrines.......................................................... 76 3.2.1 Informal Interviews...................................................................................... 76 3.3 Perceptions of Feces and the Use of Composted Human Feces as a Soil Amendment........................................................................................................... 77 3.3.1 Description of Communities........................................................................ 77 3.3.1.1 Norteño ......................................................................................... 77 3.3.1.2 Filo Verde ..................................................................................... 78 3.3.1.3 San San Puente.............................................................................. 79 3.3.2 Surveys......................................................................................................... 79 3.3.3 Socio-demographic Information .................................................................. 83 3.3.4 Data Analysis..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archaeologies of Race and Urban Poverty: The
    33 Paul R. Mullins accessed from the ground level or a second-floor Lewis C. Jones walkway that extended into the yard, where the large outhouse loomed over the neighboring out- buildings and even some of the nearby homes. Archaeologies of Race and The outhouse remained in the yard until just Urban Poverty: The Politics after 1955, when it was finally dismantled not of Slumming, Engagement, long before most of the block itself was razed. In 1970 an administrator at Indiana University- and the Color Line Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI) described the outhouse as an “architectural and engineer- ABSTRACT ing marvel,” but by then the outhouse had been dismantled for 15 years and its brick foundation For more than a century, social reformers and scholars have sat beneath a university parking lot. In the sub- examined urban impoverishment and inequalities along the color sequent years the outhouse has fascinated faculty, line and linked “slum life” to African America. An engaged students, and community members, but most of archaeology provides a powerful mechanism to assess how urban-renewal and tenement-reform discourses were used to that fascination has revolved around the mechan- reproduce color and class inequalities. Such an archaeology ics of the tower, fostering a string of jokes about should illuminate how comparable ideological distortions are which campus constituency deserved the upper- wielded in the contemporary world to reproduce longstand- story seat (Gray 2003:43). The superficial humor ing inequalities. A 20th-century neighborhood in Indianapolis, in the outhouse discourse reflects understandable Indiana, is examined to probe how various contemporary con- stituencies borrow from, negotiate, and refute long-established wonder about the structure as an engineering urban impoverishment and racial discourses and stake claims feat as well as curiosity about such a seemingly to diverse present-day forms of community heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Environmental Protection Using Modified Pit-Latrines
    Sustainable Environmental Protection Using Modified Pit-Latrines Esnati James Chaggu Promotor: Prof. dr.ir. G. Lettinga Hoogleraar in de anaërobe zuiveringstechnologie en hergebruik van afvalstoffen Co-promotoren: Dr. W. T. M. Sanders Post-doc onderzoeker bij de sectie Milieutechnologie, Wageningen Universiteit, Nederland Prof. A. Mashauri Dar-es-Salaam Universiteit, Tanzania Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Prof. G. Spaargaren Wageningen Universiteit Prof. dr. H. J. Gijzen UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Nederland Dr. G. J. Medema KIWA Water Research, Nieuwegein, Nederland Prof. Dr. H. Folmer Wageningen Universiteit Dit onderzoek is uitgevoerd binnen de onderzoekschool Wimek Sustainable Environmental Protection Using Modified Pit-Latrines Esnati James Chaggu Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor op gezag van de rector magnificus van Wageningen Universiteit, Prof. Dr. Ir. L. Speelman, in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 23 maart 2003 des namiddags te half twee in de aula CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG. Chaggu, E. J. Sustainable Environmental Protection Using Modified Pit-Latrines ISBN: 90-5808-989-4 Subject headings: excreta disposal/blackwater/nightsoil/anaerobic digestion/improved pit latrines Abstract - Chaggu, E. J. (2004). Sustainable Environmental Protection Using Modified Pit-Latrines. Ph.D Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. Pit-latrines are on-site excreta disposal facilities widely used as anaerobic accumulation system for stabilizing human wastes like excreta, both in rural and urban settlements of developing countries. Flooding of pit-latrines is often a common phenomenon, especially in situations of high water table (HWT) conditions and during the rainy season, causing a health jeopardy to residents. The pits are not water-tight, the (ground)water can freely flow in and out of the pit, especially in HWT areas.
    [Show full text]
  • What Happens When We Flush?
    Anthropology Now ISSN: 1942-8200 (Print) 1949-2901 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uann20 What Happens When We Flush? Nicholas C. Kawa To cite this article: Nicholas C. Kawa (2016) What Happens When We Flush?, Anthropology Now, 8:2, 34-43 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2016.1202580 Published online: 29 Sep 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 17 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uann20 Download by: [Tufts University] Date: 04 January 2017, At: 14:38 features reach far into our houses with their tentacles, they are carefully hidden from view, and we are happily ignorant of the invisible Venice What Happens When of shit underlying our bathrooms, bedrooms, dance halls, and parliaments.”1 We Flush? So what really happens when the mod- ern toilet goes “flush”? The human excreta it Nicholas C. Kawa handles most certainly does not disappear. Instead, a potential resource is turned into waste. But it hasn’t always been this way, and ost people who use a flush toilet prob- it doesn’t have to be. Mably don’t spend a lot of time thinking about where their bodily fluids and solids will journey after they deposit them. This is be- Dark Earths and Night Soils cause modern sanitation systems are designed to limit personal responsibilities when it Much of my research as an environmental comes to managing these most intimate forms anthropologist has focused on human rela- of excreta.
    [Show full text]
  • HEALTH ASPECTS of DRY SANITATION with WASTE REUSE Anne Peasey
    HEALTH ASPECTS OF DRY SANITATION WITH WASTE REUSE Anne Peasey Task No. 324 WELL STUDIES IN WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Health Aspects of Dry Sanitation with Waste Reuse Anne Peasey WELL Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough Health Aspects of Dry Sanitation with Waste Reuse ii London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel Street London WC1E 7HT © LSHTM/WEDC Peasey, A. (2000) Health Aspects of Dry Sanitation with Waste Reuse WELL Designed and Produced at LSHTM Health Aspects of Dry Sanitation with Waste Reuse EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Dry sanitation is defined in this report as the on-site disposal of human urine and faeces without the use of water as a carrier. This definition includes many of the most popular options for low- cost sanitation including pit latrines, Ventilated Improved Pits, SanPlats, etc. There has always been an interest in the reuse of human waste as a fertiliser, and there has been much recent work on the development of composting and other processes to permit human waste reuse. This report examines the practice of dry sanitation with reuse in Mexico, with a particular focus on health issues and the lessons to be learned from case studies and experience. DRY SANITATION WITH REUSE There are two distinct technical approaches to dry sanitation with reuse; · Dehydration. Urine and faeces are managed separately. The deposited faecal matter may be dried by the addition of lime, ash, or earth, and the contents are simply isolated from human contact for a specified period of time to reduce the presence of pathogens. · Decomposition (composting) In this process, bacteria, worms, or other organisms are used to break organic matter down to produce compost.
    [Show full text]
  • UD & Composting Toilets (Ecosan)
    UD Toilets and Composting Toilets in Emergency Settings This Technical Brief looks at the criteria for selecting Urine Diversion (UD) and Composting Toilets options in an emergency setting, including the construction, operation and maintenance of such units which is used to store and dry the faeces over a specified Ecological Sanitation or period. Normally, it is recommended to store faeces for a Sustainable Sanitation? minimum of 12-months in one vault before emptying. Adding a desiccating material such as ash or sawdust will The approach of Ecological Sanitation (Ecosan) in accelerate the faeces drying process. Typically, in a well- emergency settings breaks with conventional excreta managed ecosan unit, storage times of greater than 3- disposal options such as pit latrines or pour-flush toilets. months will reduce many pathogens to safe levels, in Traditionally, Ecosan systems re-use both faeces and particular those responsible for Ameobiasis, Giardiasis, urine, turning them into either a soil conditioner or a Hepatitis A, Hookworm, Whipworm, Threadworm, fertilizer. This not only benefits peoples’ health through Rotavirus, Cholera, Escherichia coli, and Typhoid safe excreta disposal and by reducing environmental amongst others. Ascaris is more persistent though, and contamination, but also implies re-using the by-products may require retention times of 12-months or more. for some form of agricultural activity. In an emergency setting, the choice of ecosan options is very often driven by factors other than the re-use of all or part of the by-products. Ecosan toilets are very often better suited to rocky ground or areas with high water tables, making them more resistant to cyclic flooding for instance.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Review of Urine-Diverting Dry Toilets (Uddts) Overview of Design, Operation, Management and Costs
    Technology Review of Urine-diverting dry toilets (UDDTs) Overview of design, operation, management and costs As a federally owned enterprise, we support the German Government in achieving its objectives in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development. Published by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn, Germany T +49 228 44 60-0 (Bonn) T +49 61 96 79-0 (Eschborn) Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40 53113 Bonn, Germany T +49 228 44 60-0 F +49 228 44 60-17 66 Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 65760 Eschborn, Germany T +49 61 96 79-0 F +49 61 96 79-11 15 E [email protected] I www.giz.de Name of sector project: SV Nachhaltige Sanitärversorgung / Sustainable Sanitation Program Authors: Christian Rieck (GIZ), Dr. Elisabeth von Münch (Ostella), Dr. Heike Hoffmann (AKUT Peru) Editor: Christian Rieck (GIZ) Acknowledgements: We thank all reviewers who have provided substantial inputs namely Chris Buckley, Paul Calvert, Chris Canaday, Linus Dagerskog, Madeleine Fogde, Robert Gensch, Florian Klingel, Elke Müllegger, Charles Niwagaba, Lukas Ulrich, Claudia Wendland and Martina Winker, Trevor Surridge and Anthony Guadagni. We also received useful feedback from David Crosweller, Antoine Delepière, Abdoulaye Fall, Teddy Gounden, Richard Holden, Kamara Innocent, Peter Morgan, Andrea Pain, James Raude, Elmer Sayre, Dorothee Spuhler, Kim Andersson and Moses Wakala. The SuSanA discussion forum was also a source of inspiration: http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/34-urine-diversion-systems-
    [Show full text]
  • Sanitation Options
    MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 11.479J / 1.851J Water and Sanitation Infrastructure in Developing Countries Spring 2007 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. On-site Sanitation Brian Robinson and Susan Murcott Week 12 - MIT 11.479J / 1.851J Water and Sanitation Infrastructure in Developing Countries Mass. Institute of Technology May 8, 2007 On-site Sanitation • Sanitation ladder: options in sanitation • Ecological Sanitation • Case Study: Ecosan in Kenya Improved sanitation • connection to a public sewer • connection to septic system • pour-flush latrine • simple pit latrine • ventilated improved pit latrine The excreta disposal system is considered “adequate” if it is private or shared (but not public) and if it hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. "Not improved“ = service or bucket latrines (where excreta are manually removed), public latrines, latrines with an open pit. Sanitation “Ladder” Technology Hygiene 1. Open defecation, “flying toilet” 2. “Cathole” burial 3. Pit latrine 4. VIP 5. EcoSan 6. Pour-flush 7. Water-sealed toilets + neighborhood wastewater collection 8. Water-sealed toilets + neighborhood wastewater collection + treatment 1. No Poop sanitation *S. Murcott (T.P.) 2. “Cathole” burial Sanitation “Ladder” Technology Hygiene 1. Open defecation, “flying toilet” 2. “Cathole” burial 3. Pit latrine 4. VIP On-site sanitation 5. EcoSan 6. Pour-flush 7. Water-sealed toilets + neighborhood wastewater collection 8. Water-sealed toilets + neighborhood wastewater collection + treatment 3. Pit latrine – with pit Drainage? 3. Pit Latrine, No Pit 4. Ventilated Fly screen improved Air (ventilation) pit latrine (VIP) Vent pipe Seat cover A dry latrine system, with a screened vent pipe Pedestal to trap flies and often Pit collar Cover slab (May be extended to with double pits to base of pit in poor allow use on a ground conditions) permanent rotating basis.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.5 Design of Composting Toilet for Practical Application in Burkina Faso
    Design of composting toilet for practical application in Burkina Faso Kenta Yabui*, Ken Ushijima, Ryusei Ito, Naoyuki Funamizu Department of Environmental Engineering, Graduate school of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Kita-13, Nishi-8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan [email protected] 011-706-6272 Abstract Resource recycling sanitation system, which utilize composting toilet, is one of the promising concept to improve the sanitary conditions in developing countries. In this sanitation system, toilet has to have two functions; sanitary equipment and fertilizer generator. As sanitary equipment, toilet has to provide clean, safe, comfortable environment for daily defecation. As fertilizer generator, toilet has to convert urine and feces into safe and good quality of fertilizer. The composting toile should be designed in order to perform both two functions in high quality, with low cost. In this research, design requirements for toilet as sanitary equipment and fertilizer generator are abstracted basing on field survey to 6 families from 3 villages in rural area of Burkina Faso. According to abstracted requirements, one design of composting toilet was proposed for rural area of Burkina Faso. The feces degradation performance was same level as commercial composting toilet and required torque for mixing was smaller than commercial screw type composting toilet. Key words: user oriented design, resource recycling sanitation system, composting toilet 1. Introduction Currently, in Burkina Faso, people living in rural area can access to improved toilet are 6%. In Millennium developing Goals (MDGs), the target is the number of people do not have improved sanitary facilities reduces by half by 2015. In that area, the progress of installation of sanitary facilities to achieve MDGs is too low, while more than half of the people still have open defecation culture or unimproved toilets, especially poor people.
    [Show full text]
  • On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Reuses in Japan
    Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Water Management 159 June 2006 Issue WM2 Pages 103–109 Linda S. Gaulke Paper 14257 PhD Candidate, Received 05/05/2005 University of Washington, Accepted 01/11/2005 Seattle, USA Keywords: sewage treatment & disposal/ water supply On-site wastewater treatment and reuses in Japan L. S. Gaulke MSE, MS On-site wastewater treatment poses a challenging toilets. Since then, sewers and johkasou have developed side problem for engineers. It requires a balance of appropriate by side. levels of technology and the operational complexity necessary to obtain high-quality effluent together with As of the year 2000, 71% of household wastewater in Japan adequate reliability and simplicity to accommodate was receiving some type of treatment and 91% of Japanese infrequent maintenance and monitoring. This review residents had flush toilets.1 A breakdown by population of covers how these issues have been addressed in on-site wastewater treatment methods utilised in Japan is presented in wastewater treatment in Japan (termed johkasou). On-site Fig. 1. The Johkasou Law mandates johkasou for new systems in Japan range from outmoded designs that construction in areas without sewers. Johkasou are different discharge grey water directly into the environment to from European septic tanks—even the smallest units advanced treatment units in high-density areas that (5–10 population equivalents (p.e.)) undergo an aerobic produce reclaimed water on-site. Japan is a world leader process. in membrane technologies that have led to the development of on-site wastewater treatment units capable of water-reclamation quality effluent. Alternative 1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation Into Methods of Pit Latrine Emptying April 2009
    WRC PROJECT 1745 Management of sludge accumulation in VIP latrines Investigation into Methods of Pit Latrine Emptying April 2009 by Mark O’Riordan Mark O’Riordan Investigation of Methods of Pit Latrine Emptying Page - i Executive Summary Improving sanitation is now increasingly being recognized as a key factor in ending poverty; providing basic sanitation has been included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) under target 10 of halving the proportion of people without access to adequate basic sanitation by 2015. In an attempt to reach this MDG target many developing countries have embarked on the construction of pit latrines and improved sanitation in people’s homes. An emerging challenge that is resulting from this work is what to do when the latrines are full. If they are to be emptied how should the waste be extracted, where should the waste go and what should be done to it and with it? The approaches to meeting this question are the focus of this report. The report aims to summarise all information currently available to PID resulting from; • General research • Durban’s pit latrine emptying programme • Work with the Vacutug on loan from UN Habitat • A visit to UN Habitat in Nairobi • Site visit to Vacutug facilitating charity Maji na Ufanisi working in Kibera, Nairobi • Design and development work on the ‘Gobbler’ The main part this report is a fairly high level introduction to the issue of faecal sludge management. Where details and information have been readily available the report goes into further depth. A large section of this report focuses on assessment of the United Nations Vacutug project in an attempt to build guidance for the development of a successful latrine exhausting system.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Urine Diversion
    1. Urine diversion – hygienic risks and microbial guidelines for reuse © Caroline Schönning Department of Parasitology, Mycology and Environmental Microbiology Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI) SE-171 82 Solna Sweden [email protected] This chapter is based on the doctoral thesis published by the author in February 2001: Höglund, C. (2001). Evaluation of microbial health risks associated with the reuse of source separated human urine. PhD thesis, Department of Biotechnology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. ISBN 91-7283-039-5. The full thesis (87 pages, without published papers) can be downloaded from: http://www.lib.kth.se/Sammanfattningar/hoglund010223.pdf Dr Håkan Jönsson, Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences is acknowledged for compiling Section 3, and Dr Jan-Olof Drangert, Linköping University is acknowledged for compiling Section 9. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 History 2 1.2 Nutrient content and volume of domestic wastewater 3 2. URINE DIVERSION 3 2.1 Urine diversion in Sweden 4 2.2 Source-separation of urine in other parts of the world 6 2.3 Ecological Sanitation 6 3. URINE AS A FERTILISER IN AGRICULTURE 7 3.1 Characteristics of diverted human urine 7 3.2 Collection and storage of the urine – developing countries 7 3.3 Urine as a fertiliser 8 3.4 Crops to fertilise 9 3.5 Dosage 9 3.6 Fertilising experiments 10 3.7 Acceptance 11 4. PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS IN URINE 11 5. FAECAL CONTAMINATION 13 5.1 Analysis of indicator bacteria to determine faecal contamination 14 5.2 Analysis of faecal sterols to determine faecal contamination 15 5.3 Discussion 16 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Costs of On-Site Sanitation Facilities Study Report
    Eawag Überlandstrasse 133 P.O. Box 611 8600 Dübendorf Switzerland Phone +41 (0)44 823 55 11 Fax +41 (0)44 823 50 28 www.eawag.ch Assessing the Costs of on-Site Sanitation Facilities Study Report Lukas Ulrich, Prit Salian, Caroline Saul, Stefan Jüstrich & Christoph Lüthi March 2016 Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology Assessing the Costs of on-Site Sanitation Facilities Contents 1. Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 6 3.1. Comparing the cost of on-site sanitation facilities across countries ............................................ 6 3.1.1. Ensuring comparability ............................................................................................................. 6 3.1.2. Selection of technologies ......................................................................................................... 6 3.2. Cost items included in the country comparison ........................................................................... 7 3.3. Data collection and analysis ......................................................................................................... 8 3.3.1. Development
    [Show full text]