- Resource recovery
- Safety of reuse aspects, legislation, guidelines, policies
- Multiple barrier concept, QMRA (Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment), acceptable risk for safe reuse
Multiple barrier concept, QMRA (Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment), acceptable risk for safe reuse
20.9k views
Re: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
muench wrote: Oh and I still disagree with Florian's "laissez-faire" approach when it comes to definitions of terms.
Well, this discussion illulstrates your point well, Elisabeth, so I guess you're right. Indiscrimate use of terms results in a lot of confusion. But then, Joe could really have made clear by now what exactly he means when talking about ecosan.
A few more reactions to Joe's comments here.
We have a quite detailed WHO guideline, which precicely uses these concepts to define health based targes and deduces standards and guidance on reuse of excreta. All the talk about multi-barrier systems is based on these guidelines.joeturner wrote: I am not suggesting that the risk should be 0 and the studies I have pointed out do not work on that basis. In fact the way to assess systems microbiologically is using Quantative Microbiological Risk Assessment which is based on acceptable dose rates, which is calculated by the socially acceptable number of infections in a community.
Again here is your exclusive focus on treatment (in toilets). UDDT toilets (asuming we still talk about this) are just part of a system. The complete system involves other treatment steps (like your prefered "meso-scale composting") or other protection measures (e.g. the ones listed by Christoph). You have to look at the whole system to determine if it's safe or not. Only looking at one component of the system, the toilet, is nonsense.joeturner wrote: It is possible to have toilets and even improved sanitation but without standards to determine when faeces is treated, it is impossible to say whether any system is really safe.
To come back to the example of Europe. As I said, the treatment is not safe at all and wastewater treatment plants discharge quite a lot of pathogens to the surface waters, but still the whole system certainly is quite safe. Why? Not because we have no pathogens in wastewater, as you assumed (we do!), but because plenty of other barriers are in place. The most important barrier is that nobody drinks directly from rivers, but that all drinking water is disinfected. Another safty measure is that bathing waters are monitored and flagged red when risks are present. And in some situations when it is really needed for safety, wastewater is indeed disinfected (e.g. when the discharge point is just upstream of a popular bathing spot).
So, treatment is just one safety measure in a system of multiple barriers. The decision on the treatment performance (pathogen removal rate) needed depends on the other components of the system and on economic and social considerations. Sometimes this may be 100 % pathogen removel, sometimes not.
Of course ecosan systems are not limited to such systems, as other have pointed out, but even such systems can be perfectly safe. E.g. a familiy owned UDDT toilet, where users store feces removed from chambers for addtional time before reusing it, or reuse it directly in the way Christoph described it, or just bury it somehwere in the garden.Christoph, I am talking about any system of dispersed sanitation whereby users collect, treat and handle their own faeces.
Why this can't be a safe system? The critical part is that people have to handle fecal material which may still contain some pathogens, agreed. But handling dried fecal material, that has been in a chamber for half a year without addition of fresh feaces, is much less dangerous than cleaning a toilet when a family member has diarhoea, or changing diapers of your sick child. So why should we trust in people being able to wash their hands after cleaning their toilet, but not after removing dried feces from a vault?
Btw, same is true for reuse practice. People handle all sorts of very dangerous stuff (pesticides, fertilizers) when growing crops. It's commonly accepted that the risk can be reduced to acceptable levels by appropriate protection measures. Why should this be different for fertiser containing some residual pathogens?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to replyRe: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
In cases of patients with dangerous viruses like Ebola, Coronaviruses (SARS), Polio, etc. toilets with containment and heat are necessary (eg dry incinerator toilets www.siriuseco.no/en-us/frontpage.aspx) in order to provide 100% safety from faecal transmission. But these are not available or affordable in most parts of the world. So to provide both safe containment and treatment, the brick vault UDDT toilet combined with heat treatment using hot coals to reach temperatures of over 60 celsius in the vault would be an appropriate methodology to eliminate transmission via faeces. This to my knowledge has not yet been tried at scale. Along with sterilized surfaces and hand-washing transmission would be further reduced.
Stockholm Environment Institute
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.sei.org
www.ecosanres.org
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to reply- joeturner
-
Topic AuthorLess
- Posts: 717
- Karma: 23
- Likes received: 185
Re: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
I have seen a study looking at the risks to sanitation workers from emptying UDDTs, I will try to find it again tomorrow - the point is not whether gloves reduce the risks but whether the risks are reduced to acceptable levels.
Unless there are agreed standards of risk, I cannot really see how anything can be said other than that relative risks are reduced to one set of at-risk groups.
I think meso/medium/community/village scale sanitation is possible but that small unmonitored dispersed systems are not killing pathogens to safe levels. Small/household scale systems which claim to be treating faeces are not.
I would also point out that I was responding to the blog from the Gates Foundation (see sanitation.joetnr.net/sanitation-good-in-parts/ and forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-glo...anitation-indicators ) which pointed to the importance of treated faeces. At present we have a division between Open Defecation, Unimproved Sanitation and Improved Sanitation. It is possible to have toilets and even improved sanitation but without standards to determine when faeces is treated, it is impossible to say whether any system is really safe.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to replyRe: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
a)
You consider any dispersed sanitation system = Ecosan? I am sure you know the difference.I am talking about any system of dispersed sanitation
b)
As for the barriers. This depends on the point of view. The first two are for me the most important barriers in terms of sanitation, as they bring the fecal matter to a level where it is MUCH less dangerous as for instance fecal sludge. Than you come to the emptying. I hope you agree that cleaning out a UDDT (with gloves and mouth protection) is WAY more secure than pumping out a fecal sludge tank with handpumps or manual cleaning of pits (even with protection). Therefore the second barrier had large influence.
And for the final destination....I am totally with you (and I think that is the point where we really have the same view) that a centralized collection system would be the best way to go.
c)
There you write about vermicomposting - from my knowledge (i guess we already discussed that somewhere) vermicomposting does not have any influence on the pathogen aspect.
So please indicate better what is the point which makes you so upset.
Is it the lack of centralized systems for ANY sanitation ...most of us feel with you although this for me has nothing to do with Ecosan or sustainable sanitation. You can do a centralized system wasting a lot of energy and other resources and therefore not complying with criteria of sustainability nor ecological aspects but having a safe sanitation system.
I like this discussion as it points to some basic conflicts which still exist (although I did not expect them from your side)
Yours
Christoph
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to reply- joeturner
-
Topic AuthorLess
- Posts: 717
- Karma: 23
- Likes received: 185
Re: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
In terms of the barriers, your first two points are not additional barriers because that is the normal operation of the UDDT. Research from South Africa suggests that normally operated UDDTs do not reduce pathogens to safe levels. In my view this is because it is impossible to tell if stored faeces in a UDDT has been consistently subject to the drying effect and therefore pathogens persist.
The use of safety equipment is a barrier to at-risk workers emptying the UDDTs however they are not always available or foolproof. Also this is not a barrier to other at-risk groups. But yes, risk is reduced if safety equipment is used.
Again placement of the treated faeces can be a barrier, but this depends on consistent practice and knowledge of risky behaviours.
I think these are pretty poor barriers to infection risk from faeces where it is unknown how well pathogens have been destroyed and depend on correct use and behaviour by everyone all of the time.
I do not know about other systems, I assume the problem with a lack of safety standards is the same.
That said it seems to me that it is much more likely that processes can be developed in meso scale composting, vermiculture and other systems with some monitoring to reduce risk to acceptable levels than small dispersed unmonitored systems.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to replyRe: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
But you always want us to be precise and now you begin with a sentence like the above.in most ecosan systems
Could you define ecosan systems better? I have the impression you mean UDDT.
If you ask for the multiple barriers of UDDT, my view is as followes:
- the feces fall into a separated chamber (barrier one)
- they stay there until dried out to a good level which makes handling easy (second barrier)
- the cleaning out should be done with mask and gloves (third barrier)
- and burying with a cover of 30 cm should be done (fourth barrier)
Yours
Christoph
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to reply- joeturner
-
Topic AuthorLess
- Posts: 717
- Karma: 23
- Likes received: 185
Re: Multiple barrier concept, QMRA (Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment), acceptable risk for safe reuse
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to reply- joeturner
-
Topic AuthorLess
- Posts: 717
- Karma: 23
- Likes received: 185
Re: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
Therefore talking about a risk of zero is not only impossible but not the point I am making - which is that the sector needs acceptable standards so that it is possible to tell when faeces is treated and when it is not and when the risks of handling and spreading are acceptable. Again, studies which use the best information and are based on QMRA suggest that UDDT and composting toilets do not reliably kill pathogens to safe levels.
In Europe the calculation is totally different due to the standards of healthcare available and the lack of endemic faecal diseases.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to replyRe: Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
joeturner wrote: Advocates of 'humanure' insist that composting toilets kill pathogens when they cannot possibly do so.
You're right that most on-site sanitation technologies do not reduce pathogens to 0. But you are fighting windmills in insisting that everybody here thinks othererwise.
I think "advocates of 'humanure'" usually rather say that different on-site technologies reduce pathogens to very low levels, so that with some additional measures (multi-barrier concept!) the materiales can be safely reused (or disposed off safely).
Let me give you another example: I assume you live in Europe. So you are useing a sanitation system, whose treatment in most cases does not bring down pathogen levels to 0. Most modern wastewater treatment plants in Europe have no disinfection and thus a much lower pathogen removel rate as, for instance, a good UDDT toilet. But that's not a problem at all, as there are good other saftey measures in place.
I think the important part is that ecosan implies dispersed systems without any form of testing
Properly controling individual sanitation systems is indeed a challenge. But again, in Europe or the US, there are very good systems in place to manage dispersed individual sanitation systems. So it is possible to do this safely.
On the other hand, in many countries where monitoring and management of dispersed system is bad, because of weak capacities of administrations there, the very same happens also with centralised sanitation systems.
So if sanitation systems are safe or not, is not a questions of centralised vs dispersed, or ecosan vs. something else. The question is how to make things work.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to reply- joeturner
-
Topic AuthorLess
- Posts: 717
- Karma: 23
- Likes received: 185
Ecosan - what is it really? And what is the problem with ecosan? Is there a problem? Too much ecosan in SuSanA?
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/39-any...it=12&start=12#10039
The multiple barrier concept to safe reuse was mentioned in that thread and led to the discussion below.
++++++++++++
I think the important part is that ecosan implies dispersed systems without any form of testing, which is then encouraged to be used in agriculture. Advocates of 'humanure' insist that composting toilets kill pathogens when they cannot possibly do so.
There are good quality studies which show the faeces from UDDTs and composting toilets are not safe to handle and use in this way because they do not kill sufficient pathogens.
Ultimately I don't think you can claim systems are safe if they are not being tested regularly.
It seems to me that few actually want to discuss the microbiological safety of their in-situ systems and the risks involved with telling people to reuse their own faeces.
I have collected a few studies which have considered the microbial safety of ecosan systems on my blog sanitation.joetnr.net/ecosan
Please Log in to join the conversation.
You need to login to reply- Resource recovery
- Safety of reuse aspects, legislation, guidelines, policies
- Multiple barrier concept, QMRA (Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment), acceptable risk for safe reuse