Search

Unsafe sanitation accounts for an estimated 898,000 global deaths annually. The faecal pathogen transmission pathway is complex with several possible routes. Latrine front-end characteristics and usage behaviours are one key transmission pathway for microbial pathogens, however, there has not yet been a synthesis of the available research. This review aims to compare the microbial infection risks with latrine front-end components including any quantified microbial densities within the household latrines. This review was conducted with no restriction on the geographical location of the research. Of 118 studies reviewed, only ten (8%) have quantified the microbial density inside the household latrines compared to 109 (92%) measuring the infection risks. The reported risks were most frequent for specific bacterial (n = 34), and helminths infections (n = 32) compared to diarrhoea (n = 23), combined (n = 15), protozoan (n = 4), and viral (n = 4) infections. The infections risk decreased for using latrines lying at a higher position on the sanitation ladder (for example flush latrines) compared to those lying lower (for example pit latrines). The trend was similar for using floor materials that were easier to clean and less favourable for pathogen survival inside the latrines (for example, concrete as opposed to earth). Faecal coliforms were reported highest on the surface of the squat pan (743 CFU/cm 2 ) of pour-flush latrines and helminths on earth floors of pit latrines (1.5 eggs and larvae per gram of soil). Irrespective of latrine type and its position on the sanitation ladder, a dirty latrine, evidenced by a visible lack of cleanliness, significantly increased the risk for all infections. This study recommends that effective microbial infection risk reduction in latrines can be gained efficiently by ensuring washable surfaces and consistent cleaning practices. Future studies should include more rigorous measurements of microbial densities in various latrine types incorporating the different front-end components and usage behaviours., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)

Rural and peri-urban communities in developing countries rely on sanitation systems which are often unsafely managed. One of the major barriers to assess safely managed sanitation is a lack of data about the existing sanitation infrastructure and levels of containment safety. The aim was to review rural and peri-urban on-site sanitation studies in order to understand different infrastructure types, associated management practices and any impacts on human health. The scope was limited to South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions in order to better identify regional inequalities. Among the 155 reviewed articles, 73 studies (47%) linked sanitation infrastructure to poor human health. Nearly all articles reported latrine ownership (n = 149, 96%) while sanitation infrastructure types were covered less frequently (n = 104, 67%). In particular, there was a lack of published literature describing back-end characteristics (dimension and materials) (n = 12, 8%) and/or management practices (n = 4, 3%). This stems from a limited application of research methodologies that characterise sanitation infrastructure and faecal sludge management (containment, emptying and on-site treatment). Inequality between regions was prevalent with three quarters of the studies on latrine back-end infrastructure from Bangladesh and India in South-East Asia. A strategic research approach is needed to address the current knowledge gaps regarding sanitation infrastructure and safe faecal sludge management., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)

Faecal-oral infections are a major component of the disease burden in low-income contexts, with inadequate sanitation seen as a contributing factor. However, demonstrating health effects of sanitation interventions - particularly in urban areas - has proved challenging and there is limited empirical evidence to support sanitation decisions that maximise health gains. This study aimed to develop, apply and validate a systems modelling approach to inform sanitation infrastructure and service decision-making in urban environments by examining enteric pathogen inputs, transport and reduction by various sanitation systems, and estimating corresponding exposure and public health impacts. The health effects of eight sanitation options were assessed in a low-income area in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with a focus on five target pathogens (Shigella, Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella Typhi, norovirus GII and Giardia). Relative to the sanitation base case in the study site (24% septic tanks, 5% holding tanks and 71% toilets discharging directly to open drains), comprehensive coverage of septic tanks was estimated to reduce the disease burden in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) by 48-72%, while complete coverage of communal scale anaerobic baffled reactors was estimated to reduce DALYs by 67-81%. Despite these improvements, a concerning health risk persists with these systems as a result of effluent discharge to open drains, particularly when the systems are poorly managed. Other sanitation options, including use of constructed wetlands and small bore sewerage, demonstrated further reductions in local health risk, though several still exported pathogens into neighbouring areas, simply transferring risk to downstream communities. The study revealed sensitivity to and a requirement for further evidence on log reduction values for different sanitation systems under varying performance conditions, pathogen flows under flooding conditions as well as pathogen shedding and human exposure in typical low-income urban settings. Notwithstanding variability and uncertainties in input parameters, systems modelling can be a feasible and customisable approach to consider the relative health impact of different sanitation options across various contexts, and stands as a valuable tool to guide urban sanitation decision-making., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)