ArticleJournal of environmental management2020
Drying characteristics of faecal sludge from different on-site sanitation facilities.
Article in Journal of environmental management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of unbound-bound moisture interface of faecal sludges from different on-site sanitation systems.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Article
- Achievement of waste sludge deep dehydration under acidic conditions with polydimethyldiallylammonium chloride and ferric chloride: performance and mechanism.RSC advances · 2024Article
- Physico-chemical characterization and possible uses of sludge processed from an urban sewage treatment plant.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Effect of ageing on the physicochemical properties of human faeces in the context of onsite sanitation.Environmental challenges (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- Using system dynamics to assess the complexity of rural toilet retrofitting: Case study in eastern China.Journal of environmental management · 2021Article
- Isothermal drying characteristics and kinetics of human faecal sludges.Gates open research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drying is one of the treatment techniques used for the dual purpose of safe disposal and energy recovery of faecal sludge (FS). Limited data are available regarding the FS drying process. In this paper the drying properties of FS were investigated using samples from ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines and urine diversion dry toilets (UDDT) and an anaerobic baffle reactor (ABR) from a decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Moisture content, total solids content, volatile solids content, water activity, coupled thermogravimetry & differential thermal analysis (TGA-DTA) and calorific value tests were used to characterize FS drying. Drying kinetics and water activity measured at different moisture content during drying (100 °C) were similar for the samples from different on-site sanitation facilities. Experimental heat of drying results revealed that FS requires two to three times that of the latent heat of vaporization of water for drying. Drying temperature was more significant than the sludge source in determining the final volatile solids content of the dried samples. This was reinforced by the dynamic TGA that showed considerable thermal degradation (2-11% dry solid mass) near 200 °C. Below 200 C, the calorific value of the dried samples exhibited no significant difference. The average calorific values of VIP, UDDT and ABR samples at 100 °C were 14.78, 15.70, 17.26 MJ/kg dry solid, respectively. This suggests that the fuel value of FS from the aforementioned sanitation facilities will not be significantly affected by drying temperature below 200 °C. Based on this study, the most suitable temperature for drying of FS for a solid fuel application was found to be 150 °C.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.