Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31732183›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2020

Field testing of a household-scale onsite blackwater treatment system in South Africa.

Tapuwa Sahondo, Sarah Hennessy, Rebecca C Sindall, Hitendra Chaudhari, Stephanie Teleski, Brendon J Lynch, Katelyn L Sellgren, Brian R Stoner, Sonia Grego, Brian T Hawkins

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Understanding the Catalytic Active Sites of Crystalline CoSbACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Technologies for pollutant removal and resource recovery from blackwater: a review.Frontiers of environmental science & engineering · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. The NEWgeneratorJournal of environmental management · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tapuwa SahondoPollution Research Group, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Sarah HennessyTriangle Environmental Health Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Rebecca C SindallPollution Research Group, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Hitendra ChaudhariBiomass Controls, PBC, Durham, NC, USA.
Stephanie TeleskiBiomass Controls, PBC, Durham, NC, USA.
Brendon J LynchBiomass Controls, PBC, Durham, NC, USA.
Katelyn L SellgrenDuke University Center for WaSH-AID, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian R StonerDuke University Center for WaSH-AID, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Durham, NC, USA.
Sonia GregoDuke University Center for WaSH-AID, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian T HawkinsDuke University Center for WaSH-AID, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: brian.hawkins@duke.edu.
Duke University · USBiomass Controls · USUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZATriangle · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Innovations that enable cost-effective and resource-conserving treatment of human waste are required for the 4.2 billion people in the world who currently lack safe and reliable sanitation services. Onsite treatment and reuse of blackwater is one strategy towards this end, greatly reducing the need to transport wastewater over long distances either via sewers or trucks. Here, we report on the field testing of a prototype onsite blackwater treatment system conducted over a period of 8 months. The system was connected to a women's toilet in a public communal ablution block located in an informal settlement near Durban, South Africa. Liquid waste was treated by separation and diversion of large solids, settling of suspended solids, and filtration through activated carbon prior to disinfection by electrochemical oxidation. System performance was monitored daily by measurement of chemical and physical water quality parameters onsite and confirmed by periodic detailed analysis of chemical and biological parameters at an offsite lab. Daily monitoring of system performance indicated that the effluent had minimal color and turbidity (maximum 90 Pt/Co units and 6.48 NTU, respectively), and consistent evolution of chlorine as blackwater passed through the system. Weekly offsite analysis confirmed that the system consistently inactivated pathogens (E. coli and coliforms) and reduced chemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids to meet ISO 30500 category B standards. Significant reductions in total nitrogen load were also observed, though these reductions often fell short of the 70% reduction required by ISO 30500. No significant reduction in total phosphorus was observed. Maintenance requirements were identified, and the resilience of the system to restart following a prolonged shutdown was demonstrated, but significant improvements are required in the design of the solid/liquid separation mechanism for application of this system in a wiping culture.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsSouth AfricaWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterWastewaterBlackwater reuseDurbanOnsite sanitationUser testingWASH

Identifiers

PMID31732183
PMCPMC6947494
OpenAlexW2988304271

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.