Public health performance of sanitation technologies in Tamil Nadu, India: Initial perspectives based on E. coli release.
Containment system typology
Faecal sludge management
Pathogen flow
Pathogen release
Septic system design
Septic tanks
Journal
International journal of hygiene and environmental health
ISSN: 1618-131X
Titre abrégé: Int J Hyg Environ Health
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100898843
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
14
11
2021
revised:
27
04
2022
accepted:
11
05
2022
pubmed:
28
5
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
entrez:
27
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35623255
pii: S1438-4639(22)00070-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.113987
pmc: PMC9227721
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sewage
0
Waste Water
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113987Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.
Références
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 Apr;233:113669
pubmed: 33578186
Water Res. 2018 Apr 1;132:222-240
pubmed: 29331910
Environ Int. 2004 Jan;29(7):907-21
pubmed: 14592568
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 Mar;232:113670
pubmed: 33310349
Water Res. 2021 Feb 15;190:116647
pubmed: 33310443
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Apr 1;548-549:72-81
pubmed: 26799809
Water Sci Technol. 2010;62(7):1499-509
pubmed: 20935366
Water Sci Technol. 2011;63(4):789-95
pubmed: 21330729
Water Sci Technol. 2016 Dec;74(12):2795-2806
pubmed: 27997390
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Jan 15;542(Pt A):854-63
pubmed: 26556750
J Environ Manage. 2018 Oct 01;223:898-907
pubmed: 30005415
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Sep;230:113619
pubmed: 32942223
Lancet. 2013 Apr 20;381(9875):1405-1416
pubmed: 23582727
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 16;14(12):e0221193
pubmed: 31841549
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 03;18(15):
pubmed: 34360496
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Jun;222(5):765-777
pubmed: 31088724
Environ Technol. 2013 Jul-Aug;34(13-16):2337-43
pubmed: 24350489
J Environ Manage. 2020 May 1;261:110202
pubmed: 32148272
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jan 23;15(2):
pubmed: 29360775