© 2022 The Authors Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 102 doi: 10.2166/washdev.2021.

184

Review Paper

In situ treatment technologies for pit latrines to mitigate groundwater contamination

by fecal pathogens: a review of recent technical advances

Shray Saxena * and Walter Den

Department of Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, Institute for Water Resources Science and Technology, Texas A&M University-San Antonio,
San Antonio, TX 78224, USA
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

SS, 0000-0002-0452-5619; WD, 0000-0001-7213-812X

ABSTRACT

On-site sanitation systems such as pit latrines are extensively used around the world, while there is a growing number of evidence
documenting the impact of pit latrines on groundwater quality that may affect human health. Hence, this paper summarizes the various
safe-sanitation technologies by broadly categorizing them into fecal pathogen disinfection methods (anaerobic digestion, chemical disinfec-
tion, biological additives, solar pasteurization and vermicomposting) and capturing methods (pit lining and permeable reactive barriers, the
latter of which simultaneously capture and sanitize fecal sludge in pit latrines). While some of the reviewed technologies have been widely
practiced for mitigating microbial contamination of the groundwater, others are still in the early stage of commercialization and field vali-
dation. Though there are challenges to the selection and adoption of the most appropriate technology, this paper discusses the readiness
of each technology as a stand-alone fecal sludge management solution.

Key words: fecal pathogen, groundwater contamination, pit latrine, pit lining, sludge treatment

HIGHLIGHTS

• Pit latrines impact groundwater quality that may affect human health.
• Low-cost treatment techniques are discussed to capture and treat pathogens in pit latrines.
• Pit liners such as peat, clay, hydrophobic membranes and permeable reactive barriers help capture pathogens.
• When compared with other methods, the chemical disinfection method with chlorine, lime, Ikati and Soda ranked best with the highest
score.

INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the United Nations included the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on achieving universal and equi-
table access to safe water and adequate sanitation and hygiene by 2030 (UN General Assembly 2015). In 2017, 90% of the
world population used at least basic drinking water services with .71% of the population using safely managed services
(UNICEF & WHO 2019a). Unfortunately, only 45% of the total population uses safely managed sanitation services
(WHO 2018a). Mara & Evans (2018) estimate that it would require four times the number who received improved sanitation
per day during the 15-year period from 2001 to 2015 to be served with safely managed sanitation to achieve the SDG for
sanitation by the 2030 deadline. Mara (2012) noted that the real problem here lies with the governments’ lack of commitment
to sanitation despite advocacy programs such as the International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (1981–1990), Safe
Water 2000 (1991–2000) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2001–2015).
The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that infectious diseases highly associated with unsafe water and
inadequate sanitation are a major cause of death and disease annually in both low- and middle-income countries, especially
among children ,5 years of age (Mills & Cumming 2016). These consist of diarrheal diseases (including cholera, salmonel-
losis, shigellosis, amoebiasis, and other bacterial, protozoal and viral intestinal diseases), schistosomiasis, trachoma and the
nematode infections (ascariasis, trichuriasis and hookworm disease) termed together as DSTN diseases (Franceys et al. 1992;

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and
redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 103

Kerridge et al. 2013). In 2016 alone, 55% of all DSTN deaths in the world (age 0–4 years ¼ 481,809; all ages ¼ 1,420,107) were
reported in the following five countries only: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Ethiopia
(Table 1) (WHO 2018b). Av & Sharma (2019) provide significant evidence for nutritional deficiency, stunting, underweight
issues and impaired immune function in children aged ,5 years related to DSTN diseases resulting from a lack of sanitation
or open defecation (OD). Total intestinal nematode infections account for ,1% of all DSTN deaths; however, they can con-
tribute significantly to malnutrition and suffering (Kerridge et al. 2013).
In DRC and Ethiopia, ,45% of the population use at least basic drinking water services, while the number is much higher
in Nigeria (71%), Pakistan (91%) and India (93%) (WHO & UNICEF 2019b). The data, summarized in Table 2, show that in
the latter three countries .50% of the households still depended on groundwater sources for drinking water, while a large
number of households use pit latrines (12–31%) for their sanitation needs or are forced to defecate in the open (10–30%).
The perils of OD are well documented and there is now overwhelming evidence showing the impact of pit latrines on ground-
water quality that may affect human health (Dzwairo et al. 2006; Graham & Polizzotto 2013; Orner et al. 2018). This has
caused the SDGs to target and monitor the population using safely managed sanitation in addition to the number of improved
sanitation facilities. By definition, a safe-sanitation option must ensure the safe collection, storage, sanitization and stabiliz-
ation of fecal sludge.
Sanitization of fecal sludge is the appropriate pathogen reduction technique that ensures the safe handling, disposal and
reuse of the treatment and effluent liquids, safeguarding the health of the human beings and the receiving environment
(Zindoga 2016). Therefore, this paper suggests an approach of in situ sanitization of fecal sludge to improve upon the
most popular on-site sanitation system – the pit latrine – in order to mitigate groundwater contamination and promote a
safe fecal sludge management strategy.
Based on an intensive literature search, the authors have found no review papers that focus on simultaneous collection and
sanitization of fecal sludge in pit latrines. There are, however, reviews of low-cost groundwater treatment technologies for the

Table 1 | Estimated DSTN deaths by age among WHO member states, in 2016 (summarized from WHO (2018b))

Population (thousands) DSTN deaths (thousands)

Country All ages Age 0–4 years All ages Age 0–4 years

World 7,429,868 673,876 1,420 482

India 1,324,171 119,998 410 103
Nigeria 185,990 31,802 186 76
Pakistan 193,203 24,963 64 37
Democratic Republic of Congo 78,736 14,494 63 33
Ethiopia 102,403 15,177 61 15

Table 2 | Estimates on the use of water and sanitation by the country (2000–2017) (summarized from WHO & UNICEF (2019b))

Drinking water source per

Sanitation use per thousand householdsa thousand householdsa
Total number of
(Percentage households, %) (Percentage households, %)
households
Country Pit latrine Septic tank Sewer connection Open defecation Piped water Groundwaterb (thousands)

India 65,650 (28) 7,6089 (33) 24,349 (11) 59,318 (26) 100,840 (44) 112,261 (49) 230,530
Nigeria 6,951 (31) 4,180 (19) 2,245 (10) 4,439 (20) 2,505 (11) 13,295 (59) 22,415
Pakistan 3,356 (12) 9,447 (33) 7,208 (25) 2,979 (10) 8,105 (28) 17,600 (62) 28,565
Democratic Republic of Congo 4,913 (35) 759 (5) 139 (,1) 1,680 (12) 4,491 (32) 1,921 (14) 13,943
Ethiopia 1,542 (11) 310 (2) 156 (1) 3,056 (22) 4,927 (36) 3,318 (24) 13,674
a
Number of households estimated using the average number of people per household as reported by Pew Research Center, 12 December 2019, ‘Religion and Living Arrangements
Around the World’.
b
Use of groundwater as a drinking water source is calculated as the proportion of people using non-pipedproportion of people using surface water.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 104

removal of toxic compounds and microbial contaminants (Da’ana et al. 2021). Additionally, a myriad of technologies ranging
from small-scale to field-scale have been tested to improve the sanitization and stabilization of fecal sludge in pit latrines, as
well as other stand-alone, on-site sanitation systems. Therefore, this paper reviews these cost-efficient treatment techniques for
the removal or capture of fecal pathogens in pit latrines and discusses their challenges for adoption in a pit latrine system.

APPROACH TO THE REVIEW

The relevant technologies selected for this review were derived from the Web of Science™ and the Google Scholar database
using the following keywords: ‘pit latrines’ AND ‘in-situ treatment’; ‘fecal sludge’ AND ‘treatment’; ‘fecal sludge manage-
ment’; ‘on-site sanitation’ AND ‘treatment’. Additional keywords included the major classification of pathogens’ treatment
and control mechanisms adopted from WHO (2018a) including ‘anaerobic digestion’, ‘solar radiation’, ‘thermal treatment’,
‘filtration’, ‘chemical disinfection’ and ‘attenuation in the subsurface’. To provide a critical review of the literature, studies that
directly assessed the fate and transport of microbes or contaminants and applied statistical methods to estimate pathogen
reduction efficiency due to their intervention were characterized.
For evaluation of the sanitation technologies, the following four primary indicators were selected based on Qi-yu et al.’s
(2021) evaluation index system: (1) economic costs (U1), (2) environmental impact (U2), (3) technical performance (U3)
and (4) scope of application (U4). Each sanitation technology reviewed in this study was then ranked as ‘high’, ‘medium’
and ‘low’ on the basis of their overall cost of adoption (U1), ease of adoption as a stand-alone system (U2), pathogen
removal/capture effectiveness (U3), treatment time (U3) and technology readiness (U4). Each indicator is given equal weigh-
tage and an overall score is determined by setting a score of 3, 2 or 1, corresponding to high, medium and low. Quantitative
index parameters can be divided into either cost type (U1) or benefit type (U2, U3 and U4): the lower the cost, the better or
the higher the benefit the better the index (Qi-yu et al. 2021). An overall rank is calculated by adding the benefit-type indi-
cators and subtracting the cost-type indicator in the selection criterion of each technology.

PIT LATRINE TYPES AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES

Pit latrines consist of a hole in the ground to collect and store human waste, a user-interface pan and a superstructure for
privacy. Pit latrines, when constructed properly, can hygienically separate human excreta from human contact and reduce
the transmission of fecal–oral-transmitted diseases (Hussain et al. 2017). This is why pit latrines were considered as improved
sanitation facilities under the MDGs.
The simplest form of an improved on-site sanitation system is the single-pit, ‘simple’ pit latrine. A pit latrine consists of a
slab over a pit that collects and stores excreta, urine and anal-cleansing material (Franceys et al. 1992). The aqueous phase of
the collected sludge leaches into the surrounding soil, while the solid phase decomposes. The pit is dug 2 m or more in depth
depending on the soil’s absorptive capacity and the level of groundwater table. A minimum lateral distance of 15 m from the
closest groundwater abstraction point and at least a 2 m vertical section of unsaturated soil is required between the bottom of
the pit and the water table to prevent any groundwater contamination (Obeng et al. 2016). In areas where appropriate dis-
tances between a pit latrine and a drinking water well cannot be maintained, groundwater contamination often results in
public health issues. However, this appropriate, ‘safe’ distance is variable for each pit latrine location as it depends on differ-
ent subsurface soil types, soil hydraulic conductivity (i.e. the volume of water that moves in a unit time under a unit hydraulic
gradient through a unit area), water table level, the presence of a heavy monsoon season and also with the effects of climate
change in the area. Islam et al. (2016) conducted an in-depth field investigation in Bangladesh to determine the spread of
bacteria in the subsurface from pit latrines considering different hydrogeological conditions. In this study, a clay aquitard
of 18–23 m thickness reported groundwater contamination in monitoring wells located at lateral and vertical distances of
2 and 31 m, respectively. The study also showed that a thinner 9 m clay aquitard layer resulted in fecal coliform (FC) and
fecal streptococci contamination of up to 4.5 m lateral and 40.5 m vertical distances.
Usually, a slab is placed firmly, raised from the surrounding ground to prevent any surface water from entering the pit
(Franceys et al. 1992). To support the weight of the user and the slab, the top 0.5–1 m of the pit should be lined (Reed
et al. 2016). The pits can be lined with honeycombing bricks, concrete rings, timber, stones, sandbags and even used
drums to prevent the pit from collapsing in poor soil conditions (Reed 2014).
A squat-hole in the slab or any other user-friendly toilet seat is provided to hygienically collect the human wastes into the
pit. Though there is no need to use water for operation of this toilet, the sludge can be a breeding ground for flies and other

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 105

pests. Hence, a considerable fly nuisance is associated with this setup. In addition to the fly nuisance, there is a considerable
odor emanating from the collected fecal wastes. If the superstructure around the toilet is closed without any windows, the
odor can become overwhelming and difficult to use as the pit starts to fill up. To overcome the odor and flies issue, the
pit can be ventilated by a pipe extending over the roof of the latrine containing a fly-proof netting (Tilley et al. 2014). This
is now called a ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine. In principle, the wind blowing across the top of the vent pipe effectively
sucks the odorous air out of the pit and provides a circulation of fresh air into the pit through the superstructure and squat-
hole (Mara 1984). A recommended ventilation rate of 20 m3/h can be achieved by ensuring a ventilation pipe with an internal
diameter of at least 110 mm and a reach of .300 mm above the highest point of the toilet superstructure (Tilley et al. 2014).
Obeng et al. (2019) showed that a 0.2 m0.7 m window only on the windward side of a VIP latrine cubicle, with a 150 mm
diameter ventilation pipe consisting of an insect screen and placed 500 mm above the highest point of the roof standard, pro-
vides more than the recommended ventilation rate for a 1.2 m (L)2.5 m (B)3.0 m (H) pit. The vent pipe controls flies in
VIP latrines in the following two ways: (1) the fly-proof netting at the top of the vent pipe prevents any flies attracted to the
odors from entering the pit and (2) any adult flies bred in the pit will fly up the vent toward the brightest light, provided that
the superstructure is reasonably well-shaded and get trapped by the fly-netting (Mara 1984). WHO (2002) recommends to
have a tight-fitting cover for the squat-hole that is closed after each use to prevent any disease-carrying pests from escaping
the pit. Obeng et al. (2016) provides a review of such technical design guidelines and decisions such as pit siting, ventilation,
fly-control measures and pit lining for unstable soil condition for pit latrines.
On average, solids will accumulate in a pit latrine at the rate of 40–90 L/person/year varying with the use of anal-cleansing
material (Gensch et al. 2018). Once the pit is full, it is either de-sludged and emptied for reuse or covered with soil and
replaced with a new pit. In areas with ample space to build a pit latrine, a two-pit (or twin-pit) system is adopted. A two-
pit system is sustainable for a longer time since it allows for continued usage once the first pit is full.
The double VIP latrine, also known as the alternating VIP latrine, contains two pits where one is used and the second idles,
drains, reduces in volume and degrades (Mara 1984; Tilley et al. 2014). In a waterless twin-pit latrine, excreta can be covered
with biodegradable organic matter and ash after each use and then left to degrade when full for a minimum of 1 year (Gensch
et al. 2018). After a year of degradation, the pit can be dug up for using the nutrient-rich earthy-material as a soil conditioner.
These pits are usually shallower (1–1.5 m deep) than other VIP toilets and can be used by a family of six for 1 year (Tilley et al.
2014). Such a toilet is known as the Fossa Alterna.
In a water-based toilet system, the double VIP latrine containing two alternating pits is connected to a pour-flush toilet
(Tilley et al. 2014). These pits need to be lined to the full depth of the pit. Minimum water requirement for flushing can
range from 3–6 L/person/day (directly on pit) to 6–10 L/person/day (offset) depending on the location of the pit from the
user interface (Obeng et al. 2016). Owing to a water seal, there is reduced odor and fly nuisance in these toilets. This is
the most adopted pit latrine design for households that use water for anal cleansing.
In rocky areas where digging is hard, flood-affected areas or in areas with shallow wells for drinking water, the pit needs to
be partially elevated above the ground to prevent groundwater contamination. Such pit latrines are then referred to as raised
latrines. These pits have a high sludge accumulation rate due to saturated or impervious soil boundaries and hence require
frequent emptying and disposal strategy (Gensch et al. 2018).

SANITIZATION OF FECAL SLUDGE IN PIT LATRINES

Pit latrines are also responsible for unsafe return of excreta to the environment during the entire sanitation service chain
(Kolsky et al. 2019). Some possible sources of contamination include leakage of excreta stored underground into the ground-
water, spillage from emptying and transportation, inadequate treatment and illegal disposal of untreated sludge. Therefore, in
situ sanitization of fecal sludge in a pit latrine is essential to prevent the contamination of the surrounding environment post
collection of fecal matter. The following section focuses on the inactivation and capture of any fecal pathogens leaving the pit,
with key information summarized in supplementary Table S1. The presented technologies are available at lab-scale, or at
field-scale as a stand-alone technology, or are commercially available for local use in sludge management operations.

Technologies that disinfect/inactivate fecal pathogen

Pathogen inactivation naturally occurs inside a pit latrine due to die-off, microbial competition and predation (Orner et al.
2018). However, further sanitization mechanisms used commonly in wastewater treatment as well as sludge treatment can
be used to inactivate pathogens in a pit. These supplementary mechanisms include microbial digestion, chemical disinfection,

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 106

solar radiation, thermal treatment, sedimentation and partitioning to solids, filtration and attenuation in the subsurface
(WHO 2018a).

Anaerobic digestion
Pathogens’ growth and die-off occurs naturally inside a pit latrine. Human gut bacteria consume and grow on the fecal sludge
in the pit latrine, converting the organic matter into CO2 and CH4 gases and inert residues through anaerobic digestion (AD;
Foxon et al. 2016). Theoretically, a rate of microbial degradation higher than the rate of filling can be achieved, given the right
microbes and environmental conditions (Torondel et al. 2016). Inside a pit latrine, the collected fecal sludge can be divided
into the following four layers (Figure 1) depending on storage time, the presence of oxygen and microbial activity (Nwaneri
et al. 2008): (1) the topmost layer contains fresh feces where biodegradation has not yet started; (2) the second layer, though
quite shallow, is where aerobic hydrolysis of the stored organic material occurs; (3) the third layer is where feces undergoes
anaerobic hydrolysis as a result of the elimination of oxygen by the first and second layers and finally (4) the bottom layer of
the pit is where no further sludge stabilization takes place as biodegradable matter is not readily available. Nwaneri et al.
(2008) reported a reduction in fecal pathogen as well as chemical oxygen demand (COD) content, moisture content and
organic solid fraction with an increase in depth of pit contents.
Rao et al. (2018) modified and field-tested a twin-pit toilet in India. The first pit served as an anaerobic chamber and the
second pit facilitated aerobic reactions in the upper half, with a bio-barrier in its lower half. In this twin-pit system, the anaero-
bic reactions reduced COD by 72%, while aerobic reactions reduced thermotolerant coliform counts by 2.5 log cycles.
Denitrification reactions in the bio-barrier reduced ammonium and nitrite present in the raw sewage entering the pit to nitro-
gen and water. This reaction was limited by the COD/N ratio favorable for ammonium oxidation in the aerobic chamber.
Another study from sub-Saharan Africa reports that small-scale ambient temperature AD systems can result in 2–3 log
reductions of indicator coliform bacteria from human and animal wastes (Avery et al. 2014).

Figure 1 | Pathogen removal process in the saturated and unsaturated zones surrounding the toilet pit (adapted from Orner et al. (2018)).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 107

Chemical and biological disinfection

During disaster events or humanitarian emergencies where important losses and damage are inflicted upon communities and
individuals, immediate assistance is essential to stabilize the situation and enhance recovery (Reed et al. 2016; Gensch et al.
2018). In such emergency situations, pit latrines and container-based toilet systems (CBSs) are most commonly used sani-
tation technologies for decentralized fecal sludge management (Zindoga 2016). Chemical disinfection using chlorine
solutions and hydrated lime (HL) treatment are hence an effective strategy for pathogen reduction, which are used mainly
in emergency settings due to their short treatment times. Hypochlorite or bleach solutions are added to holding tanks
filled with sludge collected from pit latrines or CBS to oxidize the microorganisms and organic matter (Tilley et al. 2014;
Silva et al. 2018). Contrarily, HL suspensions are added to leak-proof tanks containing fecal sludge to create an alkali environ-
ment causing pathogen deactivation (Gensch et al. 2018). Additionally, when mixed with fecal sludge, the lime may also act
as a coagulating agent. The coagulation–flocculation process results in pathogens and organic material to adhere to solid flocs
that can be removed by a subsequent sedimentation process (Silva et al. 2018). It is important to note that subsequent treat-
ment processes may still be needed to ensure there is no pathogen regrowth and proliferation in the sludge for maintaining
WHO-recommended limits of disinfection using chemical additives (Kumwenda 2019; Zhao & Liu 2019).
Chemical disinfection is more effective at higher dosages that can be achieved by increasing concentration and treatment
time (i.e. CT values). A HL 30% suspension results in a greater log reduction (FC ¼ 4.75; intestinal enterococci (IE) ¼ 4.16;
somatic coliphages (SOMPH) ¼ 2.85; Fþ-specific bacteriophages (FþPH) ¼ 5.13 and bacteriophages infecting Bacteroides
fragilis (GB124PH) ¼ 5.4) than a HL 10% suspension (FC ¼ 1.69, IE ¼ 1.09, SOMPH ¼ 1.31, FþPH ¼ 2.77 and GB124PH
¼ 4.66) and the best performing 0.5% NADCC (sodium dichloroisocyanurate or SIDC 65%; Minstral®) suspension (FC ¼
2.90, IE ¼ 2.36, SOMPH ¼ 3.01, FþPH ¼ 2.36 and GB124PH ¼ 0.74) (Silva et al. 2018). Zindoga (2016) batch-tested a 7%
(w/w) dose for Ikati (naturally mined carbonate) and Soda (sodium carbonate) on a freshly collected fecal sludge from a con-
tainer-based urine-diverted dry toilet and achieved a 4-log reduction in Escherichia coli concentration after 24 h and a
concentration below the detection limit (1,000 cfu/100 mL) after 48 h. A study of commercially available chemical additives
for household toilets, using calcium carbide and Lambda Super 2.5 EC™ (an agrochemical containing the active compound
lambda-cyhalothrin) to treat fecal sludge, resulted in a moisture content reduction between 39 and 74%, 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) by 30–47%, total coliform by 79–98.5% and helminth eggs by 82–99.6% (Appiah-Effah et al. 2020).
There are commercially available chemical additives and bio-additives that claim to reduce the sludge accumulation rate in a
pit latrine by enhancing biological activity. Kemboi et al. (2018) demonstrated the efficacy of 11 additives on the stabilization
and sanitization of pit latrine fecal sludge including chemical additives such as Ikati, Soda and Safety Gel™, and biological addi-
tives such as Biomax™, EM (effective microorganisms), Aquaclean™, Saniloo™, Rid X™, Terraktiv™, Men xu ly be phot™ and
Magic Pit™. The biological additives showed no or little evidence of increased anaerobic activity and of reduced volatile solids
and E. coli concentrations when compared to the addition of water or inert additives, as was found by studies using similar
additives (Foxon et al. 2009; Bakare et al. 2010; Kemboi et al. 2018). However, some biological additives did show limited suc-
cess in laboratory tests. The manufacturer’s recommended dosage for two commercial bio-additives: Ecotreat™ (4% w/w) and
Sannitree™ (3.3% w/w) achieved a 2-log reduction in E. coli concentration after 48 h (Zindoga 2016). On the contrary, the
chemical additives, such as Ikati and Soda, used by Kemboi et al. (2018), resulted in a significant reduction in E. coli concen-
trations due to an increase in pH caused by the presence of carbonate and hydroxide ions.
A promising application of biological disinfection is lactic acid fermentation of fecal sludge with fermented food wastes.
Odey et al. (2018) reported an effective inactivation of FC and E. coli using fermented rice flour and fermented milk, respect-
ively. A laboratory-scale experiment demonstrated a Log 4, Log 5.5 and Log 7.5 reduction in total coliform concentration in
fecal sludge after 21 days using a non-specified microbial culture (EM4) as the inoculum and 0, 5 and 10% (w/w) glucose as
the substrate (Soewondo et al. 2014). Similarly, Anderson et al. (2015) compared lactic acid fermentation of fecal sludge (10%
wet weight molasses and 10% wet weight pre-culture) with chemical disinfection (7–17% (w/w) HL suspension and 2.5%
(w/w) urea treatment). This study demonstrated a .2.5, .3.7 and .2.2 log removal of E. coli using lactic acid fermentation
within 168 h, urea treatment within 96 h and HL suspension within 1 h, respectively.

Solar pasteurization
Solar energy has been applied for fecal sludge drying in greenhouses and in open fields, though its use is minimal in the sani-
tation sector. Solar drying of fecal sludge from pit latrines in bench-scale tests resulted in an average drying rate between 0.5
and 0.8 kg/h/m2 (Septien et al. 2018). Ward et al. (2014) investigated a solar-powered pyrolysis reactor known as the Sol-char

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 108

toilet to convert fecal sludge from pit latrines into pathogen-free biochar. Another solar thermal water heater system was
tested at laboratory scale to dry and disinfect fecal sludge (Sweya & Mgana 2020). This system showed a 100% reduction
in total coliform and FC in 13 and 42 days for dry and wet seasons, respectively, while the sludge water content decreased
from 99.32 to 5.3% and 81.57 to 5.5% in 40 and 54 days of dry and wet seasons, respectively. Redlinger et al. (2001) presented
a stand-alone, single-vaulted, solar-composting, dry sanitation system called Sistema Integral de Reciclamiento de Desechos
Orgánicos (SIDRO). Within 6 months of operation, the system was capable of producing U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency standard Class A (,1,000 most probable number (MPN) FCs per gram) and Class B (,2106 MPN FCs per
gram) compost with safe and acceptable levels of pathogens.

Vermicomposting
Pathogen removal from pit latrines using detritivorous worms such as black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) and tiger worms
(Eisenia fetida) to process human excreta has been tested in low- and middle-income countries (Banks 2014; Furlong et al.
2016; Hylton et al. 2020). Furlong et al. (2016) trialed the use of ‘Tiger toilets’, a pour-flush toilet linked to a vermifilter (a filter
containing tiger worms) in 10 rural households in India for a period of 12 months. The effluent collected had a reduction of 57
and 99% in COD and FC, respectively, with accumulation of little fecal solids, generation of low odors and an overall safer
emptying (Furlong et al. 2016; Hylton et al. 2020). Previous studies for biosolid treatment using tiger worms have resulted in
98.65% reduction in FCs over a 24-h period (Eastman et al. 2001). Banks (2014) suggests using black soldier fly larvae (BSFL)
for vermicomposting in pit latrines due to their (1) suitability for artificial rearing, (2) ability to develop on and efficiently
reduce a variety of organic materials, yielding a valuable prepupae high in protein and fat which can be used as a protein
source for animals or have fats transformed to biodiesel and finally (3) their ability to reduce pathogens in chicken, dairy
manure and human feces. In a laboratory study, Lalander et al. (2013) showed that BSFL accelerated the reduction of Sal-
monella spp. in human feces; however, there was no significant impact on the concentrations of Enterococcus spp.,
bacteriophage ΦX174 or Ascaris suum ova.

Technologies that capture fecal pathogens

Fecal pollution of groundwater from pit latrines is severe and spatially or temporally continuous in the near-field that is restricted
for a few meters in alluvial-deltaic terrains (Ravenscroft et al. 2017). However, when the fecal pathogen leaches out into the soil
saturated with water, it can travel great distances (.20 m from pit), at faster rates, than in unsaturated soils and persist longer (up
to 42 days) (Banerjee 2011; Graham & Polizzotto 2013; Islam et al. 2016). Hence, it is also important to capture the pathogens in
the pit, slow their transport out of the pit or treat the percolating liquid before it reaches the groundwater.
The soil surrounding a pit latrine acts as a natural physical barrier to the pathogens in fecal sludge. In addition to physical
filtration, soil adsorption can also retard the movement of bacteria and other microorganisms. Depending on the pore size of
the soil, the percolating liquid is filtered and pathogens are adsorbed on the soil particles (Islam et al. 2016). Nichols et al.
(1983) stipulated that factors which reduce the repulsive forces between bacteria and soil surfaces would enhance the adsorp-
tion. For example, the coliform filtration efficiency of sand increases with a decrease in pH, while the presence of clay
enhances the bacterial adsorption. The introduction of adsorbents to the pit surface has been tested in the form of liners.
In addition to adsorption, large microorganisms such as protozoans and helminths often cannot escape out of the pit due to
their size. The soil–sludge boundary acts as a biofilm where pathogen die-off occurs due to microbial competition and chan-
ging redox environments (Orner et al. 2018). The indigenous soil microbial population has even shown to compete with fecal
bacteria for the same organic content present in the sludge causing pathogen die-off, sometimes even predation (Orner et al.
2018). Hence, permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) can potentially react and sanitize the outgoing leachate. This section
focuses on a number of potential interventions that have been tested in the laboratory or in the field.

Pit latrine liners

To capture pathogens inside a pit latrine while promoting in situ fecal sludge drying and stabilization, commercial hydro-
phobic laminate liners such as Gore-Tex™ and eVent™ fabrics were proposed by Marzooghi & Dentel (2014). Preliminary
small-scale laboratory experiments showed municipal wastewater biosolids drying from a moisture content of about 97%
to 12–30%, and permeate is observed to be free of FC (Marzooghi et al. 2017). Field testing of a hydrophobic laminate-
lined 208-L and 40-L CBS referred to as eco-vapor toilets was conducted in Kanpur, India. Saxena et al. (2021) increased
the time taken to fill a conventional CBS by at least 19% due to the enhanced in situ drying of fecal sludge. However, the
study did not check for pathogen retention or die-off inside the laminate-lined container. Since most pathogenic bacteria

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 109

are inactivated by moisture reduction to a threshold water activity (Remington et al. 2020), pit latrines with commercial
hydrophobic laminate liners have been proposed in order to mitigate fecal contamination of groundwater (Figure 2).
To reduce the hydraulic conductivity of the soil surrounding the pit, sandbag lined pit latrines or ‘birkaroons’ were first
installed in Dadaab refugee camps in north eastern Kenya (Barasa 2000). This is an eco-friendly and cost-effective way to
line toilets in emergency situations. Naser et al. (2019) reported a reduction of 27% E. coli and 24% thermotolerant coliform
mean counts in pit latrines using a 50-cm thick sand barrier in coastal Bangladesh. Similarly, Banerjee (2011) demonstrated
that clay enveloped around a leach pit toilet arrests the movement of chemical and bacteriological pollutants to a consider-
able extent. In another study, the movement of FC was completely arrested in pit latrines using a peat liner containing a
mixture of sphagnum and reed-sedge peat (Nichols et al. 1983). However, nitrates were able to move readily from the pit
latrines regardless of the soil type or the presence of a peat liner. In emergency situations, Reed et al. (2016) highlights
the use of other types of liners including bore piles, concrete rings, corrugated steel roofing sheets, timber, bamboo, plastics,
geotextiles and gabions that may have helped capture fecal bacteria and other chemical constituents. However, impermeable
or improper linings led to flotation of sealed pits, or worse, an eventual collapse of the pit.

Permeable reactive barriers

A possible solution to mitigating groundwater contamination is to augment pit latrines with a PRB that can selectively adsorb
and remediate the leachate. PRBs are widely used where contaminated groundwater flow passes over a reactive material such
as zero-valent iron, limestone, microorganisms, straw, peat and others, for immobilization or passive contaminant degra-
dation (Da’ana et al. 2021). Suhogusoff et al. (2019) field-tested a pit latrine improved with a PRB composed of locally
available materials: basic oxygen furnace slag and sawdust. The effluent had completely attenuated microorganisms and phos-
phate, while nitrate removal average efficiency was 42%. Similarly, Rao & Malini (2015) demonstrated heterotrophic
denitrification capability of bentonite-enhanced sand PRB by reducing nitrate concentration by 85–90% in batch and
column tests. Rao et al. (2018) also successfully field-tested a modified twin-pit toilet that used a bio-barrier constructed
using sand, gravel and cattle manure mixers to facilitate denitrification reactions (see supplementary Table S1).

DISCUSSION
WHO (2018b) provides general safety guidelines for pit latrine construction, while Tilley et al. (2014) and Gensch et al. (2018)
present a comprehensive list of sanitation systems and technologies including their appropriateness, design considerations,
advantages and disadvantages in rural, peri-urban and high-density urban areas as well as in emergency situations. However,

Figure 2 | Transport of fecal pathogens in a VIP latrine. The breathable laminate liner inside a pit latrine captures pathogens while allowing
drying of fecal sludge.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 110

a big challenge is to disseminate this information to the local masons and sanitation workers who are responsible for toilet
construction and maintenance. These masons often lack formal training or the ability to disseminate the correct technology
options to the user (Roberts et al. 2007). This results in poor toilet design, construction and maintenance, thereby causing
non-adoption of safe-sanitation practices and eventually reverting people back to unsafe sanitation practices including OD
(Busienei 2019). The following section looks at some challenges in adopting the above-mentioned technologies for modifying
on-site sanitation systems to safe-sanitation systems.

Practical implications and challenges of in situ sanitization in pit latrines

For years, AD has been used for the treatment of municipal wastewater and is considered highly efficient for inactivating
pathogens. Physiochemical factors such as high temperature, high uncharged aqueous ammonia concentration at high pH
and high volatile fatty acids at low pH have shown to increase the rate of deactivation of FC, polio virus, ascaris egg and
other pathogens during AD of biosludge (Orner et al. 2018; Zhao & Liu 2019). However, AD is slow in nature and requires
very long storage times (recommended 1–2 years depending on the pit volume) to eradicate the pathogen completely (WHO
2018a). Avery et al. (2014) documented that the efficiency of AD is dependent on the operating temperature, hydraulic reten-
tion time, solids retention time and composition of sludge.
Chemical disinfection, though simple, has an associated health risk from storage and handling of the corrosive chemicals.
Usually, chemicals need to be mixed with the sludge to be effective. Chlorine-based disinfectants are known to form toxic
disinfection by-products with the organic matter in fecal sludge, while HL treatment has a highly alkaline effluent that
can leach into the groundwater if used in situ to treat pit latrine wastes (Anderson et al. 2015; Gensch et al. 2018). On
the contrary, there are inconclusive results from commercially available chemical and biological additives for pit latrines.
Foxon et al. (2016) note that there is a potential significant enhancement in the rate of AD inside a pit latrine. However,
the variability in pit latrine design, fecal sludge contents, local conditions and cost-effectiveness makes additives an unreliable
technology. Furthermore, the fermentation process promoted by biological additives itself is highly susceptible to environ-
mental conditions, culture used for fermentation and its mixing conditions. The treated sludge may require additional
processing for sludge stabilization (Gensch et al. 2018). Furthermore, the chemical and bio-additives are costly compared
to the use of proven chemical disinfection using HL and even other chlorine-based interventions. Anderson et al. (2015)
report that the cost of sanitizing 1 m3 of fecal sludge was estimated to be €32, €20 and €12 for lactic acid fermentation,
urea treatment and HL suspension, respectively, based on Malawian prices in 2015.
Decentralized sanitation technologies using solar pasteurization and vermicomposting are still under-developed and evol-
ving. Solar-based technologies are limited to the exposure to sunlight reaching the fecal sludge, and its use for sanitization in
pit latrines will be dependent on the water/sludge depth, clarity of sludge and exposure time (WHO 2018a). Currently, there is
no evidence of technologies using the germicidal effects of sunlight inside pit latrines. On the contrary, vermicomposting- and
vermifiltration-based sanitation systems have demonstrated effective reduction of E. coli and other indicator organisms in lab-
and field-scale studies (Lalander et al. 2013; Hylton et al. 2020). However, there is still a knowledge gap with regard to effects
on other pathogens found commonly in fecal sludge, and vermicomposting and vermifiltration efficiency with parameters
such as temperature, rainfall intensity, sludge content and worm species.
To capture pathogens, pit latrine liners such as sandbags, peat liners, clay envelopes and PRBs have been successfully
applied in rural, urban and even in emergency situations. Yet, the reduction of pathogens inside a pit and their transmission
of contaminants to the groundwater remain highly dependent on the level of water table, rainfall, hydraulic conductivity of
the soil and its relative location to the nearest water-pump (Ravenscroft et al. 2017). Hence, to capture contaminants and to
provide a safe end-to-end sanitation chain, Russel et al. (2019) argue that CBS is a good alternative to pit latrines. In a CBS,
fecal matter is collected and stored in sealable containers which are transported to a treatment site when the container is full.
CBSs have recently gained popularity in high-density, informal, urban and peri-urban settlements of developing countries
such as Madagascar (Loowatt), Kenya (Sanergy, Sanivation), Haiti (SOIL) and Peru (X-runner) (Dewhurst et al. 2019). How-
ever, the success of a CBS needs the support of an auxiliary sanitation service chain for proper collection, transportation,
disposal and treatment of fecal sludge containers. Though still a nascent technology, a field-scale hydrophobic laminate-
lined CBS demonstrated the ability to capture and dry fecal sludge when applied in urban-slum households (Saxena et al.
2021). Consequently, hydrophobic laminate liners might be touted as a potential technology capable of capturing pathogens
and contaminants safely inside a CBS or a pit latrine with the possibility of in situ sanitization and stabilization of fecal sludge
(Marzooghi & Dentel 2014).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 111

Table 3 | Comparison of pathogenic contamination containment methods for pit latrines

Benefit-type indicator
Cost-type indicator
Environmental Scope of
Technical performancea (U3)
Economic cost (U1) impact (U2) application (U4)
Overall cost of Ease of Pathogen removal Technology Overall
b b
adoption adoption effectiveness Treatment time readinessc scored

AD (Rao et al. 2018) Low Low Medium Low Low 2.5

Chemical disinfection Low High High High High 8
(chlorine/lime treatment)
(Trajano et al. 2019)
Solar pasteurization High Medium Medium Low Medium 2.5
(Redlinger et al. 2001)
Thermal treatment High Medium High High Low 3
(Naidoo et al. 2020)
Pit latrine additives (Ikati/ Low High Medium High High 7.5
Soda) (Zindoga 2016)
Biological disinfection (lactic Medium Medium Low Medium Low 2.5
acid fermentation)
(Odey et al. 2018)
Vermicomposting (‘Tiger’ Medium Medium High Medium Medium 4.5
toilets) (Furlong et al. 2016)
Benefit-type indicator

Cost-type indicator Environmental Scope of

Technical performancea (U3)
Economic cost (U1) impact (U2) application (U4)

Overall cost of Ease of Pathogen removal Potential for Technology Overall

adoptionb adoptionb effectiveness contaminant removal readinessc scored

Pit liner (sandbags)

(Naser et al. 2019) Low High Low Low High 6.0
Pit liner (clay envelope)
(Banerjee 2011) Low Medium High Low High 6.0
Pit liner (peat)
(Nichols et al. 1983) Low High High High Medium 7.0
Pit liner (hydrophobic
membranes)
(Marzooghi et al. 2017) High Medium High Low Low 2.0
Permeable reactive barriers
(Suhogusoff et al. 2019) Medium Low High High Low 3.0
Container-based toilet (Russel
et al. 2019) Medium Medium High Low High 5.0
a
The treatment performance for each technology is summarized in Supplementary material, Table S1.
b
Ease and overall cost of adoption rank technologies based on the additional requirements for infrastructure and maintenance when compared to a standard ventilated pit latrine
system. This also includes the ease and cost of acquisition of materials and services. For example, hydrophobic membranes will be more difficult and costlier to procure than
sandbags, clay and peat, while hydrophobic membrane and clay envelope toilets will require more frequent pit emptying than a standard pit latrine.
c
Technology readiness compares the robustness of each technology; ‘High’ for conventional, frequent use, ‘Medium’ for field implementation with 100 s of units, ‘Low’ for laboratory
studies or field studies with 10 s of units in operation.
d
Overall score adds the benefit-type and subtracts the cost-type quantitative indicators for each technology. ‘High’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Low’ are assigned a value of 3, 2 and 1,
respectively. For example, overall score for container-based toilet ¼ 2 þ 2 þ (3 þ 1)=(2) þ 3 ¼ 5.

Comparison of treatment technologies

Currently, an accurate comparison for the cost of fecal sludge treatment technologies is difficult due to the following pro-
blems: (1) extrapolation of reported cost under specific conditions at one site to another site; (2) costs could be reported
in various metrics that cannot be directly compared, such as the achieved reduction in contaminants and the cost per treated
volume or surface area treated; (3) indirect costs, including system design, equipment mobilization, modification to site

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 112

conditions and user awareness, are usually not reported and finally (4) inconsistency in the way technologies at different
stages of development derives the total cost of treatment (Da’ana et al. 2021). Additionally, the selection of the best-available
technology for the mitigation of groundwater contamination is difficult. Hence, to give a top-level, comprehensive compari-
son, Table 3 ranks each of the above-mentioned technologies as ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ on the basis of their pathogen
removal/capture effectiveness, ease of adoption as a stand-alone system, treatment time, overall cost of adoption and technol-
ogy readiness. An overall score is determined by aggregating high (3), medium (2) and low (1) ranks for benefit-type and cost-
type quantitative indicators in the evaluation criterion of each technology (Qi-yu et al. 2021). As a result, the chemical dis-
infection using chlorine and lime, pit latrine additives using Ikati and Soda and peat liners for pit latrines have the highest
score, likely attributed to their robustness as a technology in wastewater management. On the contrary, AD adopted pit
latrines by Rao et al. (2018), solar technology or SIDRO toilets adopted by Redlinger et al. (2001), lactic acid fermentation
technology by Odey et al. (2018) and hydrophobic membrane lined toilets proposed by Marzooghi et al. (2017) had the lowest
scores. Although the scoring method inevitably works in favor of robust technologies versus developing, field-scale technol-
ogies, it serves to highlight the areas of a technology still facing challenges to gain market acceptability and user adoption as a
stand-alone in situ treatment system.

CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) practices are still the best barriers to human exposure to fecal
pathogens. Hand washing, improved toilets, safe containment, conveyance, treatment, end use and disposal, access to
clean drinking water as well as source water protection are all important in order to prevent transmission of fecal pathogens
to humans and the environment. In situ treatment of fecal sludge in pit latrines may be a viable option to mitigate ground-
water contamination and prevent contamination at various points in the sanitation chain. Though the selection of the best
technique needs to be decided on a case-to-case basis due to variability in the risk of transmission of pathogens from sani-
tation technologies to humans and the environment. This research provides a comparative ranking to the several
treatment options on the basis of sanitization or captures the efficiency of fecal pathogens, ease of adoption, cost, treatment
time and potential, and technology readiness. Finally, it is recommended that future research efforts focused on developing
safe fecal sludge management technologies and techniques can also be systematically ranked for pragmatic selection of tech-
nologies by WASH professionals, field practitioners and other key stakeholders.

FUNDING
This publication was funded by Grand Challenges Canada under the ‘Creating Hope in Conflict – A Humanitarian Grand
Challenge’ (funding no. R-HGC-POC-2007-35575).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C., Malambo, D. H., Perez, M. E. G., Nobela, H. N., De Pooter, L., Spit, J., Hooijmans, C. M., De Vossenberg, J. V., Greya, W. &
Thole, B. 2015 Lactic acid fermentation, urea and lime addition: promising faecal sludge sanitizing methods for emergency sanitation.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12 (11), 13871–13885.
Appiah-Effah, E., Duku, G. A., Dwumfour–Asare, B., Manu, I. & Nyarko, K. B. 2020 Toilet chemical additives and their effect on faecal
sludge characteristics. Heliyon 6 (9), e04998.
Av, S. & Sharma, R. 2019 Understanding the impact of open defaecation on child diarrhoea and nutrition indicators. Journal of Health
Management 21 (4), 487–496.
Avery, L. M., Anchang, K. Y., Tumwesige, V., Strachan, N. & Goude, P. J. 2014 Potential for pathogen reduction in anaerobic digestion and
biogas generation in sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass and Bioenergy 70, 112–124.
Bakare, B. F., Nwaneri, C. F., Foxon, K. M., Brouckaert, C. J., Still, D. & Buckley, C. 2010 Pit latrine additives: Laboratory and field trials.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PIT-LATRINE-ADDITIVES-%3A-LABORATORY-AND-FIELD-TRIALS-Bakare-Nwaneri/
03c190991eb6ce5aa984c3e0d090c5dba4a2bf32.
Banerjee, G. 2011 Underground pollution travel from leach pits of on-site sanitation facilities: a case study. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy 13 (3), 489–497.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 113

Banks, I. J. 2014 To Assess the Impact of Black Soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) Larvae on Faecal Reduction in Pit Latrines. PhD Thesis,
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17037/PUBS.01917781.
Barasa, C. 2000 A new innovation for lining pit latrines in collapsing formations. In: Conference Contribution. Loughborough University.
Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/2134/29824.
Busienei, P. J. 2019 Latrine structure, design, and conditions, and the practice of open defecation in Lodwar town, Turkana county, Kenya: a
quantitative methods research. Environmental Health Insights 13, 1178630219887960.
Da’ana, D. A., Zouari, N., Ashfaq, M. Y., Abu-Dieyeh, M., Khraisheh, M., Hijji, Y. M. & Al-Ghouti, M. A. 2021 Removal of toxic elements and
microbial contaminants from groundwater using low-cost treatment options. Current Pollution Reports 7, 300–324.
Dewhurst, R. N., Furlong, C., Tripathi, S., Templeton, M. R. & Scott, R. E. 2019 Evaluating the viability of establishing container-based
sanitation in low-income settlements. Waterlines 38 (3), 154–169.
Dzwairo, B., Hoko, Z., Love, D. & Guzha, E. 2006 Assessment of the impacts of pit latrines on groundwater quality in rural areas: a case
study from Marondera district, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 31 (15–16), 779–788.
Eastman, B. R., Kane, P. N., Edwards, C. A., Trytek, L., Gunadi, B., Stermer, A. L. & Mobley, J. R. 2001 The effectiveness of vermiculture in
human pathogen reduction for USEPA biosolids stabilization. Compost Science & Utilization 9 (1), 38–49.
Foxon, K. M., Mkhize, S., Reddy, M. & Buckley, C. A. 2009 Laboratory protocols for testing the efficacy of commercial pit latrine additives.
Water SA 35 (1), 228–235.
Foxon, K. M., Naidoo, S. A., Brouckaert, C. J., Harrison, J., Pfaff, B., Remigi, E. & Buckley, C. 2016 Can VIP additives make a difference. In:
Proc. WISA. pp. 15–19.
Franceys, R., Pickford, J. & Reed, R. & World Health Organization 1992 A Guide to the Development of on-Site Sanitation. World Health
Organization, Geneva. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/onsitesan.pdf (accessed 25 December 2021).
Furlong, C., Gibson, W. T., Oak, A., Thakar, G., Kodgire, M. & Patankar, R. 2016 Technical and user evaluation of a novel worm-based, on-
site sanitation system in rural India. Waterlines 35 (2), 148–162.
Gensch, R., Jennings, A., Renggli, S. & Reymond, P. 2018 Compendium of Sanitation Technologies in Emergencies – German WASH
Network. WASH Cluster, SuSanA, Eawag.
Graham, J. P. & Polizzotto, M. L. 2013 Pit latrines and their impacts on groundwater quality: a systematic review. Environmental Health
Perspectives 121 (5), 521–530.
Hussain, F., Clasen, T., Akter, S., Bawel, V., Luby, S. P., Leontsini, E., Unicomb, L., Barua, M. K., Thomas, B. & Winch, P. J. 2017 Advantages
and limitations for users of double pit pour-flush latrines: a qualitative study in rural Bangladesh. BMC Public Health 17 (1), 515.
Hylton, E., Noad, L., Templeton, M. R. & Sule, M. N. 2020 The rate of vermi-compost accumulation within ‘tiger toilets’ in India.
Environmental Technology, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2020.1789750.
Islam, M. S., Mahmud, Z. H., Islam, M. S., Saha, G. C., Zahid, A., Ali, A. H. M. Z., Hassan, M. Q., Islam, K., Jahan, H. & Hossain, Y. 2016
Safe distances between groundwater-based water wells and pit latrines at different hydrogeological conditions in the Ganges atrai
floodplains of Bangladesh. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 35 (1), 26.
Kemboi, E., van de Vossenberg, J., Hooijmans, C. & Mamani, G. 2018 Impacts of pit latrine additives on volatile solids and E. coli in faecal
sludge. In: Water Quality Management (V. Singh, S. Yadav & R. Yadava, eds.). Water Science and Technology Library, vol 79. Springer,
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5795-3_37.
Kerridge, B. T., Khan, M. R., Rehm, J. & Sapkota, A. 2013 Conflict and diarrheal and related diseases: a global analysis. Journal of
Epidemiology and Global Health 3 (4), 269–277.
Kolsky, P., Fleming, L. & Bartram, J. 2019 Proof of Concept of Estimates for the Unsafe Return of Human Excreta: Models of Unsafe Return of
Excreta in Four Countries. The Water Institute at the UNC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kumwenda, S. 2019 Inactivation of pathogens in ecological sanitation latrines in Malawi: an observational follow up study. Malawi Medical
Journal 31 (1), 12–18.
Lalander, C., Diener, S., Magri, M. E., Zurbrügg, C., Lindström, A. & Vinnerås, B. 2013 Faecal sludge management with the larvae of the
black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) — from a hygiene aspect. Science of the Total Environment 458, 312–318.
Mara, D. D. 1984 The Design of Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Mara, D. 2012 Sanitation: what’s the real problem? IDS Bulletin 43 (2), 86–92.
Mara, D. & Evans, B. 2018 The sanitation and hygiene targets of the sustainable development goals: scope and challenges. Journal of Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 8 (1), 1–16.
Marzooghi, S. & Dentel, S. K. 2014 Sludge drying through hydrophobic membranes. Water Reclamation and Sustainability 2014, 361–390.
Marzooghi, S., Shi, C., Dentel, S. K. & Imhoff, P. T. 2017 Modeling biosolids drying through a laminated hydrophobic membrane. Water
Research 111, 244–253.
Mills, J. E. & Cumming, O. 2016 The Impact of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene on Key Health and Social Outcomes. Available from: https://
www lshtm ac uk/sites/default/files/2017-07/WASHEvidencePaper_HighRes_01. 23.
Naidoo, D., Archer, C. E., Septien, S., Appleton, C. C. & Buckley, C. A. 2020 Inactivation of ascaris for thermal treatment and drying
applications in faecal sludge. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 10 (2), 209–218.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 114

Naser, A. M., Doza, S., Rahman, M., Ahmed, K. M., Gazi, M. S., Alam, G. R., Karim, M. R., Khan, G. K., Uddin, M. N., Mahmud, M. I. &
Ercumen, A. 2019 Sand barriers around latrine pits reduce fecal bacterial leaching into shallow groundwater: a randomized controlled
trial in coastal Bangladesh. Environmental Science & Technology 53 (4), 2105–2113.
Nichols, D. S., Prettyman, D. & Gross, M. 1983 Movement of bacteria and nutrients from pit latrines in the boundary waters canoe area
wilderness. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 20 (2), 171–180.
Nwaneri, C. F., Foxon, K., Bakare, B. F. & Buckley, C. 2008 Biological degradation processes within a pit latrine. In: WISA 2008 Conference,
Sun City.
Obeng, P. A., Oduro-Kwarteng, S., Keraita, B., Bregnhøj, H., Abaidoo, R. C., Awuah, E. & Konradsen, F. 2016 On-site sanitation systems for
low-income countries: technical guidelines for groundwater pollution and nuisance control. In: Impact of Water Pollution on Human
Health and Environmental Sustainability (A. McKeown & G. Bugyi, eds.). IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 319–342. http://doi:10.4018/
978-1-4666-9559-7.ch014.
Obeng, P. A., Oduro-Kwarteng, S., Keraita, B., Bregnhøj, H., Abaidoo, R. C., Awuah, E. & Konradsen, F. 2019 Redesigning the ventilated
improved pit latrine for use in built-up low-income settings. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 9 (2), 374–379.
Odey, E. A., Li, Z., Zhou, X. & Yan, Y. 2018 Locally produced lactic acid bacteria for pathogen inactivation and odor control in fecal sludge.
Journal of Cleaner Production 184, 798–805.
Orner, K., Naughton, C. & Stenstrom, T. 2018 Pit toilets (latrines). In: Global Water Pathogen Project (Rose, J. B. & Jiménez-Cisneros, B.,
eds). Available from: http://wwwwaterpathogensorg.
Qi-yu, Z., Zeng-jin, L., Lai-sheng, L. & Na, L. 2021 Research on comprehensive evaluation model of rural domestic sewage treatment technology
based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and analytic hierarchy process method. Water Practice & Technology 16 (2), 452–471.
Rao, S. M. & Malini, R. 2015 Use of permeable reactive barrier to mitigate groundwater nitrate contamination from on-site sanitation. Journal
of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 5 (2), 336–340.
Rao, S. M., Arkenadan, L. & Mogili, N. V. 2018 Performance of modified twin pit toilet in Mulbagal town, Karnataka, India. Journal of Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 8 (3), 578–584.
Ravenscroft, P., Mahmud, Z. H., Islam, M. S., Hossain, A., Zahid, A., Saha, G. C., Ali, A. H. M. Z., Islam, K., Cairncross, S. & Clemens, J. D.
2017 The public health significance of latrines discharging to groundwater used for drinking. Water Research 124, 192–201.
Redlinger, T., Graham, J., Corella-Barud, V. & Avitia, R. 2001 Survival of fecal coliforms in dry-composting toilets. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 67 (9), 4036–4040.
Reed, B. 2014 G024: Latrine Pit Excavation and Linings, Version 1. Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. https://hdl.handle.net/
2134/31000.
Reed, B., Torr, D. & Scott, R. 2016 Emergency sanitation: developing criteria for pit latrine lining. Waterlines 35 (2), 194–214.
Remington, C., Bourgault, C. & Dorea, C. C. 2020 Measurement and modelling of moisture sorption isotherm and heat of sorption of fresh
feces. Water 12 (2), 323.
Roberts, M., Tanner, A. & McNaughton, A. 2007 Supply Chain Assessment for Sanitary Latrines in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas of Cambodia,
Water and Sanitation Program (WSP): International Development Enterprises (IDE). Available from: https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.
org/files/userfiles/WSP-Supply-Chain-Assessment-Report-Cambodia.pdf.
Russel, K., Hughes, K., Roach, M., Auerbach, D., Foote, A., Kramer, S. & Briceño, R. 2019 Taking container-based sanitation to scale:
opportunities and challenges. Frontiers in Environmental Science 7, 190.
Saxena, S., Srivastava, P. K., Dentel, S. K., Imhoff, P. T. & Cha, D. K. 2021 Field demonstration of breathable laminate-lined container-based
toilets in Kanpur, India. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 11 (3), 505–514.
Septien, S. S., Mugauri, T. & Singh, A. 2018 Solar drying of faecal sludge from pit latrines in a bench-scale device. In: Transformation Towards
Sustainable and Resilient WASH Services: Proceedings of the 41st WEDC International Conference.
Soewondo, P., Febriana, A., Handajani, M., Firdayati, M., Bettendorf, T., Wendland, C. & Otterpohl, R. 2014 Faeces treatment by lactic
fermentation process and future perspectives of Terra Preta sanitation concept in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International
Conference on Terra Preta Sanitation (T. Bettendorf, C. Wendland & R. Otterpohl, eds). Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, Osnabrück.
http://www.tuhh.de/t3resources/aww/publikationen/pdf/TPS-IC/19_P_Soewondo_et_al.pdf.
Suhogusoff, A. V., Hirata, R., Aravena, R., Robertson, W. D., Ferrari, L. C. K. M., Stimson, J. & Blowes, D. W. 2019 Dynamics of nitrate
degradation along an alternative latrine improved by a sawdust permeable reactive barrier (PRB) installed in an irregular settlement in
the municipality of São Paulo (Brazil). Ecological Engineering 138, 310–322.
Sweya, L. N. & Mgana, S. M. 2020 Disinfection of fecal sludge using solar thermal water heating: sludge management option for developing
countries. Journal of Environmental Engineering 146 (12), 04020137.
Tilley, E., Lüthi, C., Morel, A., Zurbrügg, C. & Schertenleib, R. 2014 Compendium of sanitation systems and technologies. Swiss Federal
Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland. https://www.eawag.ch/en/department/sandec/
publications/compendium/ (Accessed 25 December 2021).
Torondel, B., Ensink, J. H. J., Gundogdu, O., Ijaz, U. Z., Parkhill, J., Abdelahi, F., Nguyen, V. A., Sudgen, S., Gibson, W. & Walker, A. W. 2016
Assessment of the influence of intrinsic environmental and geographical factors on the bacterial ecology of pit latrines. Microbial
Biotechnology 9 (2), 209–223.
Trajano Gomes da Silva, D., Dias, E., Ebdon, J. & Taylor, H. 2018 Assessment of recommended approaches for containment and safe
handling of human excreta in emergency settings. PLoS ONE 13 (7), e0201344.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development Vol 12 No 1, 115

Trajano Gomes da Silva, D., Ives, K., Fesselet, J.-F., Ebdon, J. & Taylor, H. 2019 Assessment of recommendation for the containment and
disinfection of human excreta in cholera treatment centers. Water 11 (2), 188.
UN General Assembly 2015 Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1. Available from: https://
www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (accessed 1 September 2021).
Ward, B. J., Yacob, T. W. & Montoya, L. D. 2014 Evaluation of solid fuel char briquettes from human waste. Environmental Science &
Technology 48 (16), 9852–9858.
World Health Organization (WHO) 2002 Environmental Health in Emergencies and Disasters: a Practical Guide. Environmental Health in
Emergencies and Disasters: a Practical Guide.
World Health Organization (WHO) 2018a Guidelines on Sanitation and Health: World Health Organization (9241514701, License: CC BY-
NC-SA 3.0 IGO.).
World Health Organization (WHO) 2018b Global Health Estimates 2016: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000–2016.
Available from: https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates/en/ (accessed 6 October 2020).
World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF 2019a Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2017: Special
Focus on Inequalities. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF 2019b Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene: Estimates
on the Use of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene by Country (2000–2017). Available from: https://washdata.org/data (accessed 6 October
2020).
Zhao, Q. & Liu, Y. 2019 Is anaerobic digestion a reliable barrier for deactivation of pathogens in biosludge? Science of the Total Environment
668, 893–902.
Zindoga, M. A. 2016 Investigation of the Effectiveness of Additives in Enhancing Stabilisation and Sanitisation of Faecal Sludge in
Emergency Situations. MSc Thesis, UWS-SE-Kumasi. Available from: https://saniup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UWS-SE-
KUMASI-2016-18-Marcos-Amos-Zindoga_Final-version.pdf.

First received 28 September 2021; accepted in revised form 18 November 2021. Available online 20 December 2021

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/12/1/102/997475/washdev0120102.pdf

by guest