Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances

Abstract

BackgroundA pit latrine is the most basic form of improved sanitation which is currently used by a number of people around the globe. In spite of the wide spread use, known successes and advantages associated with pit latrines, they have received little attention in form of research and development. This review focuses on the usage and performance (filling, smell and insect nuisance) of pit latrines in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and proposes approaches for their improvements and sustainability.MethodsCurrent pit latrine usage within urban SSA was calculated from Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) water and sanitation country-files. We conducted a literature search and review of documents on pit latrine usage, filling, smell and insect nuisances in urban areas of SSA. Findings of the review are presented and discussed in this paper.Results and DiscussionPit latrines are in use by more than half the urban population in SSA and especially among low income earners. An additional 36 million people in urban areas of SSA have adopted the pit latrine since 2007. However, their performance is unsatisfactory. Available literature shows that contributions have been made to address shortfalls related to pit latrine use in terms of science and technological innovations. However, further research is still needed.ConclusionAny technology and process management innovations to pit latrines should involve scientifically guided approaches. In addition, development, dissemination and enforcement of minimum pit latrine design standards are important while the importance of hygienic latrines should also be emphasized.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2772-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu, Kenya

“…In the informal settlements of most developing countries, sanitation facilities are often shared among a number of households, and the most dominant sanitation technology is the pit latrine (traditional pit latrine, simple pit latrine or ventilated improved pit latrine) (Nakagiri et al 2016). Sanitation decisions that need to be made in such a context include investment in, repair, emptying and maintenance (cleaning) of these latrines.…”

Performance of EcoSan Toilets at Majumbasita in Dar Es Salaam – Tanzania

“…The pH results compares with those found by Farzadkia (2014) for double vault-urine diverting (DVUD) toilet which where from 6.2-13.0 due to addition of additives. Nakagiri and Niwagaba (2016) found out that, addition of lime, ash and soil resulted in corresponding pH values of 11, 9.4 and 8.8. However, they found that, pH of 11-12 is reached in treatment methods using lime.…”

Pit Toilets (Latrines)

“…However, several challenges exist in managing faecal sludge, especially in urban areas. For example, latrines may overflow due to continued use or abandoned without new latrine construction (Nakagiri et al, 2015;Blackett et al, 2014). Pathogen reduction during the management of faecal sludge is covered in the Sludge Management: Biosolids and Faecal Sludge chapter.…”

“…Use of water for anal cleansing adds moisture to the pit contents, whereas dry cleaning material increases the solids accumulation rate up to 90 liters/person/year . The rate of solids accumulation can be estimated as 40-60 liters/person/year depending on the type of anal cleansing materials employed by users, although the range can be as variable as 19-90 liters/person/year (Nakagiri et al, 2015). Therefore, to allow sufficient time for filling, the pit volume should be ≥ 1,000 L .…”