ABSTRACT
Sanitation is intended to reduce the spread and burden of diseases transmitted from excreta. Pathogen reduction from excreta before sludge or effluent discharge to the environment would seem a logical and useful performance indicator for sanitation systems. However, the relative magnitudes of pathogen release from common sanitation technologies are not well understood. We, therefore, investigated the feasibility of performance measurement of different sanitation technologies in Tamil Nadu, India in reducing the release of the pathogen indicator Escherichia coli (E. coli). After conducting users' surveys and technical assessments of the locally prevalent sanitation systems, we classified them into 7 distinct categories (based on both observed physical characteristic and usage) within a widely-accepted physical typology. Faecal sludge and wastewater samples were collected and analysed for E. coli and total solids from 136 household systems, 24 community systems, and 23 sanitary sewer oveflows. We estimated the average volumetric release rates of wastewater and faecal sludge from the different sanitation technologies. Average daily per capita E. coli release was computed, and used as one indicator of the public health performance of technologies. We found that on-site installations described by owners as "septic systems" included diverse forms of tanks and pits of uncertain performance. We observed a statistically significant difference in the average daily per capita E. coli release from different sanitation technologies (p = 0.00001). Pathogen release from the studied on-site sanitation technologies varied by as much as 5 orders of magnitude from "lined pits" (5.4 Log10 E. coli per person per day) to "overflowing sanitary sewers" and "direct discharge pipes" (10.3-10.5 Log10 E. coli per person per day). Other technologies lay between these extremes, and their performances in E. coli removal also varied significantly, in both statistical and practical terms. Our results suggest that although faecal sludge management along the sanitation service chain is important, sanitation planners of the observed systems (and probably elsewhere) should direct higher priority to proper management of the liquid effluents from these systems to minimize public health hazards. We conclude that (i) the work demonstrates a new and promising approach for estimating the public health performance of differing sanitation technologies, (ii) if E.coli is accepted as an indicator of the public health hazard of releases from sanitation systems, our results strongly suggest that safe containment of excreta for an extended period substantially reduces pathogen numbers and the risk of pathogen release into the environment; and (iii) there are some simple but little-used technical improvements to design and construction of on-site sanitation systems which could significantly reduce the release of pathogens to the environment.
Subject(s)
Escherichia coli Infections , Sanitation , Escherichia coli , Escherichia coli Infections/prevention & control , Feces , Humans , India , Public Health , Sewage , WastewaterABSTRACT
We conducted a controlled before-and-after trial to evaluate the impact of an onsite urban sanitation intervention on the prevalence of enteric infection, soil transmitted helminth re-infection, and diarrhea among children in Maputo, Mozambique. A non-governmental organization replaced existing poor-quality latrines with pour-flush toilets with septic tanks serving household clusters. We enrolled children aged 1-48 months at baseline and measured outcomes before and 12 and 24 months after the intervention, with concurrent measurement among children in a comparable control arm. Despite nearly exclusive use, we found no evidence that intervention affected the prevalence of any measured outcome after 12 or 24 months of exposure. Among children born into study sites after intervention, we observed a reduced prevalence of Trichuris and Shigella infection relative to the same age group at baseline (<2 years old). Protection from birth may be important to reduce exposure to and infection with enteric pathogens in this setting.
Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/prevention & control , Helminthiasis/prevention & control , Sanitary Engineering , Toilet Facilities , Urban Health , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Child, Preschool , Diarrhea/epidemiology , Diarrhea/microbiology , Diarrhea/prevention & control , Dysentery, Bacillary/epidemiology , Dysentery, Bacillary/microbiology , Dysentery, Bacillary/prevention & control , Female , Helminthiasis/diagnosis , Helminthiasis/epidemiology , Helminthiasis/parasitology , Humans , Infant , Male , Mozambique/epidemiology , Prevalence , Reinfection , Residence Characteristics , Soil/parasitology , Time Factors , Trichuriasis/epidemiology , Trichuriasis/parasitology , Trichuriasis/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Evidence on sanitation and hygiene program costs is used for many purposes. The few studies that report costs use top-down costing methods that are inaccurate and inappropriate. Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is a participatory behavior-change approach that presents difficulties for cost analysis. We used implementation tracking and bottom-up, activity-based costing to assess the process, program costs, and local investments for four CLTS interventions in Ghana and Ethiopia. Data collection included implementation checklists, surveys, and financial records review. Financial costs and value-of-time spent on CLTS by different actors were assessed. Results are disaggregated by intervention, cost category, actor, geographic area, and project month. The average household size was 4.0 people in Ghana, and 5.8 people in Ethiopia. The program cost of CLTS was $30.34-$81.56 per household targeted in Ghana, and $14.15-$19.21 in Ethiopia. Most program costs were from training for three of four interventions. Local investments ranged from $7.93-$22.36 per household targeted in Ghana, and $2.35-$3.41 in Ethiopia. This is the first study to present comprehensive, disaggregated costs of a sanitation and hygiene behavior-change intervention. The findings can be used to inform policy and finance decisions, plan program scale-up, perform cost-effectiveness and benefit studies, and compare different interventions. The costing method is applicable to other public health behavior-change programs.