A review of sanitation technologies for flood-prone areas

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Despite the formal acknowledgment of sanitation as a fundamental human right, more than 600 million people still practice open defaecation, most of them in poor countries. A part of this challenge is related to the type of natural environment such as floodable areas where flooding affects thousands of people every year and has a direct impact on their access to sanitation. Although there is a wide range of technological sanitation options for vulnerable communities, few publications explore their applicability to areas prone to constant natural floods, thereby hampering the possibilities for improving sanitation conditions in such areas. This review aims at compiling and consolidating current information on sanitation options for floodable areas with a focus on their technological, environmental, and managerial peculiarities. A systematic review identified 28 relevant publications presenting sanitation solutions for those environments. They were grouped into dry solutions and wet solutions. Our analysis showed that there is no single universal technology capable of solving the problem but instead, a set of different technological arrangements that could be implemented bearing in mind the environmental and social contexts in which they are inserted.</jats:p>

Impact of an Urban Sanitation Intervention on Enteric Pathogen Detection in Soils

“…14−18 Latrines and septic tanks are useful barriers against the transport of human feces into the environment. However, enteric pathogens may still move into soils through open defecation, 19 unhygienic pit emptying, 20,21 fecally contaminated greywater, 22,23 improper disposal of children's feces or anal cleansing materials, 24,25 latrine flooding, 20,26,27 animal feces, 28−30 or subsurface transport from unlined pits. 31−33 Domestic soils contaminated by enteric pathogens can pose infection risks beyond incidental 34 and direct 35 soil ingestion: contaminated soil may be transported to hands, food, fomites, or household stored water.…”

“…There is a growing body of literature that indicates soils contaminated by feces in public and domestic environments pose infection risks. − In health impact trials that assess improved onsite sanitation systems, soils are assessed to measure how effectively the intervention sequestered human feces. − Latrines and septic tanks are useful barriers against the transport of human feces into the environment. However, enteric pathogens may still move into soils through open defecation, unhygienic pit emptying, , fecally contaminated greywater, , improper disposal of children’s feces or anal cleansing materials, , latrine flooding, ,, animal feces, − or subsurface transport from unlined pits. − Domestic soils contaminated by enteric pathogens can pose infection risks beyond incidental and direct soil ingestion: contaminated soil may be transported to hands, food, fomites, or household stored water . For these reasons, soils may be a useful matrix to assess the impact of onsite sanitation interventions.…”

Influence of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on Concentration and Distribution of Escherichia coli in Water Surrounding an Informal Floating Community in Iquitos, Peru

“…Clean water delivery and sewage management are persistent problems for floating communities due to technical challenges associated with living on water (e.g., large seasonal changes in water level, limited access to land treatment plants, etc.). Additionally, many floating communities are not legally recognized by local governments who adopted more static Western models of city planning and have limited legal frameworks for communities that live on land and water (Djonoputro et al., 2010; Pedro et al., 2020). This latter factor, in particular, limits the willingness of governments to invest in sanitation infrastructure within floating communities and, while the communities themselves often do invest in such infrastructure, their resources are limited.…”

“…that live on land and water (Djonoputro et al, 2010;Pedro et al, 2020). This latter factor, in particular, limits the willingness of governments to invest in sanitation infrastructure within floating communities and, while the communities themselves often do invest in such infrastructure, their resources are limited.…”

Impact of an Urban Sanitation Intervention on Enteric Pathogen Detection in Soils

“…[14][15][16][17][18] Latrines and septic tanks are useful barriers against the transport of human feces into the environment. However, enteric pathogens may still move into soils through open defecation 19 , unhygienic pit emptying 20,21 , fecally contaminated greywater 22,23 , improper disposal of children's feces or anal cleansing materials 24,25 , latrine flooding 20,26,27 , animal feces [28][29][30] , or subsurface transport from unlined pits [31][32][33] . Domestic soils contaminated by enteric pathogens can pose infection risks beyond incidental 34 and direct 35 soil ingestion: contaminated soil may be transported to hands, food, fomites, or household stored water.…”