Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29800857›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2018

Conceptual environmental impact assessment of a novel self-sustained sanitation system incorporating a quantitative microbial risk assessment approach.

Aikaterini Anastasopoulou, Athanasios Kolios, Tosin Somorin, Ayodeji Sowale, Ying Jiang, Beatriz Fidalgo, Alison Parker, Leon Williams, Matt Collins, Ewan McAdam and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparative life cycle assessment of excreta management systems through composting and biomethanization: Case of a low-income tropical country.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aikaterini AnastasopoulouSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: A.Anastasopoulou@cranfield.ac.uk.
Athanasios KoliosSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: a.kolios@cranfield.ac.uk.
Tosin SomorinSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: t.o.onabanjo@cranfield.ac.uk.
Ayodeji SowaleSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: A.O.Sowale@cranfield.ac.uk.
Ying JiangSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: y.jiang@cranfield.ac.uk.
Beatriz FidalgoSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: b.fidalgofernandez@cranfield.ac.uk.
Alison ParkerSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: a.parker@cranfield.ac.uk.
Leon WilliamsSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: l.williams@cranfield.ac.uk.
Matt CollinsSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: matt.collins@cranfield.ac.uk.
Ewan McAdamSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: e.mcadam@cranfield.ac.uk.
Sean TyrrelSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Electronic address: s.tyrrel@cranfield.ac.uk.
Cranfield University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many developing countries, including South Africa, water scarcity has resulted in poor sanitation practices. The majority of the sanitation infrastructures in those regions fail to meet basic hygienic standards. This along with the lack of proper sewage/wastewater infrastructure creates significant environmental and public health concerns. A self-sustained, waterless "Nano Membrane Toilet" (NMT) design was proposed as a result of the "Reinvent the Toilet Challenge" funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A "cradle-to-grave" life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was adopted to study the use of NMT in comparison with conventional pour flush toilet (PFT) and urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT). All three scenarios were applied in the context of South Africa. In addition, a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) was used to reflect the impact of the pathogen risk on human health. LCA study showed that UDDT had the best environmental performance, followed by NMT and PFT systems for all impact categories investigated including human health, resource and ecosystem. This was mainly due to the environmental credits associated with the use of urine and compost as fertilizers. However, with the incorporation of the pathogen impact into the human health impact category, the NMT had a significant better performance than the PFT and UDDT systems, which exhibited an impact category value 4E + 04 and 4E + 03 times higher, respectively. Sensitivity analysis identified that the use of ash as fertilizer, electricity generation and the reduction of NOx emissions were the key areas that influenced significantly the environmental performance of the NMT system.

Indexed as

SanitationEnvironmentHumansRisk AssessmentSewageSouth AfricaWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterSewageWastewaterConventional sanitation systemsEnvironmental assessmentNano-membrane toiletQuantitative microbial risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID29800857
PMCPMC6021597
OpenAlexW2804320114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.