Dear all,
Sudhir has sent me the outline of the SanTool schematic by e-mail this morning. For some strange reason, it failed to attach to the post properly (actually I found out later it's because the resolution was too high, with 4882 × 6447 pixels).

Meanwhile, I have uploded it to flickr to make it available. I have inserted it into Sudhir's post above and it's also here:

SanTool by SuSanA Secretariat , on Flickr

To get the file itself, just click on the flickr link and then click on "download photo". It's that symbol with the arrow pointing downwards to a vertical line, you find it at the bottom right next to the photo in flickr.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Hi Sudhir

You mentioned that you "attach the outline of the verification process based on the tool with your mention. I think it got lost... could you reattach the document?
Cheers, Dorothee

Hi Elisabeth

The Department of Water and Sanitation is keen to take over the application of the tool for the sanitation sector. The innovators and developers are keen to use the tool as it also ensures the most appropriate technologies are implemented and would like to have their technologies go through the process validation and include the info in their tender bids. And we have also been communicating with SA Bureau of Standards with regards to process verification that we have developed. I have attached the outline of the process in this message:

SanTool by SuSanA Secretariat , on Flickr


The need for this tool became apparent during the SanIC process; many reviewers had different opinions of whether technologies would work or not. The need for a framework for process functionality became apparent; if the technologies had been through this process it would have greatly assisted the reviewers. There is no winner or loser in SanIC programme; it was to get an idea of what is in the market, what is ready for roll-out, and how the reviews could assist the developers. There are confidentiality aspects with respect to that programme which I cannot disseminate at this moment.

Put simply: Many toilets have been installed without anyone asking whether they work or not. And I am not talking about contextual issues (do you like dry toilets?, etc.) What are the limits of a particular technology? If a tech can handle only 30 "flushes" per day, then we need to know this when implementing. Is this system anaerobic? Does total pathogen inactivation occur? The WRC has shown over the years from the research on VIPs and UD toilets that the "common knowledge" of how some of these toilets work is flawed. Pits do fill up, complete deactivation of pathogens does not occur, etc.

With respect to WRC projects, I can send you a list. There are others on Susana eg. school sanitation (Bobbie Louton and Dave Still) forum.susana.org/forum/categories/27-sch...tion-in-south-Africa
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/27-sch...nded-toiletslearners

and LaDePa process (Santiago, Konstantina and Chris Buckley). forum.susana.org/forum/categories/53-fae...-in-ethekwini-durban


Some our reports may be embedded in Susana discussions.

Kind Regards
Sudhir

Dear Sudhir,

Thanks for sharing this important information! You said "outline of tool is shown in attachment" - but where? I couldn't find it. I can imagine how such a self-regulation framework can look for package treatment plants, but for the wide variety of sanitation systems possible at the household level, it's much more difficult, I think.

Also, can you tell us more about the Sanitation Innovation Challenge (SanIC) Programme?

In fact, it would be good to have it included in the sanitation projects database that SuSanA is compiling. So far this database only includes these three from WRC:
www.susana.org/en/resources/projects?search=wrc

I see you made a call for it here a year ago: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/95-cal...innovation-challenge

Could you make a post there to tell us who won it or what came out of it?

Regards,
Elisabeth

WRC Research Project K5/2414: Sanitation Technology Assessment
Stakeholders: Department of Science and Technology, Department of Water and Sanitation
Research Teams: Isidima (Jonny Harris - Project Lead), UKZN (Chris Buckley, Pollution Research Group) and Partners in Development (Dave Still)

To give an update, the WRC recently completed a desktop review of sanitation technologies available as part of the Sanitation Innovation Challenge (SanIC) Programme. It was clear from that review process, that the technical functionality of toilet systems or process validation was not clear. A Sanitation Technology Assessment tool was being developed at the same time as the SanIC programme to assist with this. Yesterday, a workshop was held at Garden Court, OR Tambo International Airport (JHB) with the many sanitation technology developers and innovators in which the framework of the tool was presented to them and in which they could provide feedback (outline of tool is shown in attachment). The WRC aims to establish self-regulation in the industry in which there is process validation and high confidence that technologies selected would perform to manufacturing claims. A similar project was completed on the small package plants (see attachment). The tool under development aims to guide developers and innovators in the steps required for treatment process validation and encourage competition and R&D into developing better products. The response from the developers and innovators has been encouraging.

Hi Dorothee. I'll be interest in (b). Will drop you an email. Kind Regards

Dear Jay

I am currently working at a PhD project at Eawag to develop methods to (a) identify sanitation system options that are appropriate and (b) quantifying peformance indicators to support multi-criteria decision making.

For I am looking at methods from product development based on the definition a generic set of attributes that define the appropriateness of a given technologies. This set can then be used to identify appropriate options in a given case.

If this is of relevance to you, please contact me.
Regards
Dorothee

Dear Francis,

Sounds great. If you (or anyone else) do/does decide to go down the Wikipedia route as a student assignment, then you can draw on tools provided by Wikipedia here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Student_assignments

E.g. I like this part of the article:

Guidance [edit source]
Advice for students [edit source]

First, welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia welcomes new editors, and we hope you will want to stick around after your class is over. Writing and editing here is an expression of encyclopedism using an open and free wiki. You will find that editing Wikipedia will feel quite different than writing a typical term paper, particularly because you will likely have to work with editors who are not fellow students in your class.

[...] Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so what you will write needs to be based mainly on secondary sources, and not on your own interpretations.[7] And because this is an open wiki, other editors can modify or revert the edits you make, often at the same time that you are working on your article. No person or entity (not even your class!) owns articles here, and everything you publish here instantly becomes freely-licensed to the public, which means that others are free to rewrite, reuse, or modify it for any legal purpose, as long as they credit the original source.

I would be happy to be a long-distance tutor for any student(s) doing such important Wikipedia work.

I think indeed there is a lot of information about pit emptying technology around, although the difficulty will be to really get your hands on it. It might required some interviews with key people, like Steve Sugden, Dave Still etc. I am also talking with the people from the "Fecal Sludge Omni-Ingestor Project" contract paid for by the BMGF: they now have a website (www.FSMtech.org) which is however not very detailed yet, as they are still in the R&D phase.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Elisabeth,

I can see if a student here at NC State University can take that on as a project (specifically, pit emptying technologies). It's possible to do a Wikipedia page, but also possible to do a more comprehensive and insightful analysis. I think we may have enough case studies/experiences in several countries to compare performance, costs, etc.

Hi Elisabeth. It is about developing a set of protocols for establishing the functionality of technologies. We have found through some of our recent research that it is difficult to ascertain the processes occurring in some of the sanitation units in the market. The study funded by WRC aims to develop a set of protocols (lab and field tests) to test these units. In some instances, it is similar in concept to scientific evaluation of pit additives that was done a couple years back where jar tests were used - before the study, marketers of the products claims x, y and z processes occurred after addition of product. Quiet different to a selection tool - we first want to determine whether the stated processes occurring in the tech actually do happen (quiet difficult when you see some tech having a combination of process eg aerobic and anaerobic in one tank!). The study is being led by Jonny Harris together with Dave Still and Chris Buckley.

Dear Jay,
Could you elaborate a bit further what kind of tool you have in mind? Do you mean a framework to compare sanitation systems that are already operating (rather than a tool to select the "right" sanitation system for a given situation)? What kind of sanitation systems do you want to compare. I am guessing for contralised wastewater treatment systems this already exists. Perhaps a Google search on "benchmarking WWTPs" would bring up some interesting results.

Have you made any progress since your post from 2 months ago?

Something that is perhaps related: I was talking with some others at the FSM3 conference (Francis, Jamie Radford and I was meant to speak to Dave Still, too) that it would be good to have a table comparing the performance (and costs) of different pit emptying technologies which are available on the market right now.

A bit like Volume 3 of the publication by Dave Still et al. from 2012:
www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/1712

But perhaps more succinct and easier to update, e.g. I was thinking of a Wikipedia page. Wouldn't this be a nice assignment for some students doing a course on WASH? It could easily be updated at any time by anyone, provided the person has a valid source to cite for the change that he/she wants to make in such a table.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Hi Jay,
my colleagues at Skat have been working on a "Technology Applicability Framework", which perhaps is similar to what you have in mind. See here for the website: www.washtechnologies.net/en/
Best regards,
Florian