CIV3205 : Public Health Engineering 1

Chapter IV – Management of Domestic Sewage

Dr. Charles B. Niwagaba (PhD)

cniwagaba@cedat.mak.ac.ug,
cbniwagaba@gmail.com
Associate Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Makerere University
 CHAPTER 4

MANAGEMENT OF DOMESTIC
SEWAGE
 Chapter Outline
• Introduction –Some definitions, How important is Sanitation,
what are the global/international and local perspectives, sanitation
coverage in Uganda, Objectives of sanitation provision, factors
affecting selection of a sanitation system.

• Types of on-site sanitation systems –

Various types of non-water borne (traditional pit latrines
and improved latrines, ROEC, compost latrines) and water
borne sanitation systems (aquaprivy, vaults, cesspools,
septic tanks and pour flush toilets), ecological sanitation
(ecosan) toilets.
 Chapter Objective
The objectives of this chapter are:
– to introduce to you the importance of sanitation, and
– thereafter learn the various sanitation technological options and how
to design them, their capabilities and limitations as well as new
developments in sanitation.
• At the end of this chapter, therefore, you should:
– be aware of the various factors affecting the choice of a sanitation
option
– be able to plan and design different sanitation technological options
in any given situation (rural, urban, semi/peri-urban areas, low-lying
areas; rocky and collapsing formations; the poor, middle income and
the rich).
References
The main references for this Chapter are:
1. Feroze, M. Ahmed, Rahman Mujibur (Md.), 2010. Water Supply and
Sanitation: Rural and Low-incom urban communities. Fourth edition. ITB-
Bangladesh, Center for Water Supply and Waste Management, BUET,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh. ISBN 984-31-0936-8.
2. Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph. and Zurbrügg, C., 2014.
Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. 2nd Revised
Edition. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
(Eawag). Dübendorf, Switzerland. ISBN: 978-3-906484-57-0.

• To a small extent, also:

1. Strande, L., Ronteltap, M., Brdjanovic, D. (Editors), 2014. Faecal Sludge
Management, Systems Approach for Implementation and Operation.
International Water Association (IWA), Londo, UK.
www.iwapublishing.com. ISBN: 9781780404721 (Hardback), ISBN:
9781780404738 (eBook).
 Important Definitions
• Sanitation - the science and practice of effecting
healthful and hygienic conditions, and involves the
study and use of hygienic measures such as:
– safe, reliable water supply; proper drainage of wastewater; prompt
removal of all refuse; proper disposal and/or safe recycling of all
human wastes; vector and vermin control; personal and institutional
hygiene, as well as housing in respect of ventilation and lighting.

• In terms of excreta disposal, sanitation is the means

of safely collecting and hygienically disposing of
excreta and liquid wastes for the protection of public
health and the preservation of the quality of public
water bodies and, more generally, of the
environment.
 Definitions Cont’d
• Sanitation can also be defined more simply as the
safe disposal of human excreta.

• The phrase ‘‘safe disposal’’ implies not only that

people must excrete hygienically but also that their
excreta must be contained or treated to avoid
adversely affecting their health or that of other
people.
 Definitions Cont’d
• Domestic waste is the waste generated by homes
and residences, and is composed of solid waste
and sewage.

• Sewage is the waste matter generated by a

community and transported through the sewer.

– Sewage is composed of human body wastes (faeces

and urine) and sullage (wastewater from kitchens and
bathrooms).
Domestic waste components
Domestic Waste

Solid Waste Sewage

Water (99.9%) Solids (0.1%)

Organics (70%) Inorganics (30%)

Carbohydrates (65%) Grit

Fats (10%) Mineral salts

Proteins (25%) Metals

 Definitions Cont’d
• Sewer is an open channel or closed pipe used to
convey/transport sewage.

• Sewerage is the physical sewer infrastructure

(even though it is at times used interchangeably
with sewage).

• Strength of sewage refers to the concentration of

biodegradable matter in sewage, judged by BOD
or COD. A typical design value of 40 gBOD5/c/day.
 Definitions Cont’d
• On the basis of the strength of sewage:

Strength BOD (mg/L) COD (mg/L)

Weak <200 <400

Medium 350 700

Strong 500 1000

Very strong >750 >1500

 Definitions Cont’d
• Onsite Sanitation or on-plot sanitation is defined
as a sanitation system in which excreta and
wastewater are collected and stored or treated on
the plot where they are generated.

• Offsite Sanitation or off-plot sanitation is a

sanitation system in which excreta and wastewater
are collected and conveyed away from the plot
where they are generated. An offsite sanitation
system relies on a sewer technology for
conveyance.
 Definitions Cont’d
• Wastewater is used water from any combination of
domestic, industrial, commercial or agricultural
activities, surface runoff/stormwater, and any sewer
inflow/infiltration.

• Faecal sludge is material from onsite sanitation

systems, and has not been transported through a
sewer. It is raw or partially digested, slurry or
semi-solid.
Definitions Cont’d
 FS is NOT wastewater or wastewater sludge.
 FS comes from onsite sanitation systems,
and has not been transported through a
sewer. It is raw or partially digested, slurry or
semi-solid.
 FS is highly variable in consistency, quantity,
and concentration.
 Organic matter, Total Solids, ammonium, and
helminth egg concentrations in FS are
typically higher by a factor of ten or more
than in wastewater.
Definitions Cont’d
What makes FS highly variable?

 Lets look at two pits with FS at same level!

Pit A filled slowly, e.g. household toilet with
A B
few users. FS has densified at the bottom.
 Pit B filled fast e.g. public/communal
latrines, little densification at bottom. Do these pits have the same content?

 To decrease filling rate, advice such as ‘add an old car battery’,

‘apply kerosene’, ‘add EMs, IMOs, ... salt, sugar, ash, fertilizer, or
even a dead cat! etc’ are common.
 Filling rate (fast or slow), type of system (lined or not) and nature
of soil (infiltrating or not), additives etc all influence variability of
FS.
 Definitions Cont’d
 Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) is the
management of the generation, storage,
collection, transport, treatment and safe enduse
or disposal of FS.
COLLECTION &
CAPTURE STORAGE TRANSPORT
TREATMENT REUSE
 Distinction between excreta, sludge and
wasteater
 Excreta means urine and faeces.
 Faecal sludge is composed of excreta, and
additional input material, which, may include
water for cleaning, water or solids for anal
materials and menstrual hygiene products, grey
water (bathing or kitchen water, including fats,
oils and grease), and solid waste.
 Wastewater contains excreta and additional
input material, which consists largely of water to
enable its transportation via a sewer to the
treatment plant.
Distinction between excreta, sludge and
wasteater
 Types of sludges

 Wastewater sludge consists of sludge, which is

in the sewer (or sewerage), or types of sludge
from wastewater treatment plants (e.g. waste
activated sludge, stabilisation pond sludge,
anaerobically digested sludge or biosolids).
 Types of faecal sludge from onsite containments
that are not connected to sewers include septic
tank and pit latrine sludge.
 Septic tank sludge is also called septage, and
includes sludge, scum and supernatant
Types of sludges
 Factors affecting the variability of faecal
sludge
 Temperature – this affects rates of degradation
 containment type such as a lined pit latrine with no
overflow, or a septic tank with an overflow for
supernatant, can affect concentrations
 additional inputs such as grey water can affect
concentrations, or kitchen waste can affect fats, oils and
grease, or garbage can affect volumes
 retention time can range from days to years, and can
affect the level of stabilization
 emptying practices such as fully or partially emptied, or if
water was added to help sludge removal, can affect
concentrations and stabilization
 Factors affecting the variability of faecal
sludge Cont’d
 treatment performance such as for septic tanks that are
designed for solid-liquid separation, can affect
concentrations of solids in the septic tank and in the
supernatant.
 construction quality such as a septic tank that was
poorly constructed with an impervious bottom, or an
unlined pit latrine that collapses, can have multiple
effects on sludge characteristics
 groundwater such as infiltration into pit latrines, or
exfiltration of faecal sludge, can affect concentrations.
 Historical Developments
• About 12,000 years ago, people lived in small groups
as hunters and gathers.

• Nature took care of wastes!

• Sanitation issues are also biblical!

– The Holy Bible (Deut: 23:12-14): “You are to have a
place outside the Camp where you can go when you
need to relieve yourselves, keep your Camp ritually
clean, because the Lord your God is with you and in
your Camp to protect you. Do not do anything indecent
that would cause the Lord to turn his back on you”
 Historical Developments
• Problems with transmission of diseases occurred
with increased population/urbanisation.

• It became evident that sanitation systems that could

form a barrier against disease spread were needed.

• The first efforts to achieve this were to move away from

open defecation to the simple basic on-site sanitation
facilities i.e., the Cat method, and then the pit latrines.

• Water-borne sewage systems were also initially

constructed in the 19th century to solve problems with
transmission of diseases.
 Cont’d 1
• Introduction of sewage systems saw a decrease in
diseases linked to latrines.
• However, new problems were introduced i.e.,
– accumulation of large particles at sewer outlets
– oxygen depletion leading to death of fish and
– nutrient (N & P) over load in surface waters leading to eutrophication and
disappearance of lakes and rivers.
• Drawbacks of conventional sanitation systems:
– difficult soils – rocky and collapsing formations for pit latrines
– need to dig new pits – often land is a problem in urban areas for pit latrines
– high initial cost and O&M costs in the case of water borne systems, and
– contamination of ground and surface water in some cases by both systems.

THUS, approach to sanitation has been transiting – 1) hide in

ground on site, 2) flush away into environment/river, 3) treat and
discharge, 4) treat and re-use = modified sanitation ladder!
 How important is sanitation?
• Importance of SANITATION in safeguarding the
health and well-being is well documented.
• According to UNICEF/WHO (2009), inadequate
sanitation is a major problem in low income
countries and infectious diarrhoea kills more
people than AIDS, malaria and measles
combined!! Can you imagine????
• In conflicts and disasters that displace a lot of
people, the lack of sanitation/excreta disposal
facilities kills more people than anything else,
e.g.nearly 80% of the 300,000 conflict related
deaths in Darfur were due to diseases
associated with diarrhoea, NOT to violence.
How important is sanitation? Cont’d

• Lack of sanitation may exacerbate:

– Hunger, environmental pollution, malnutrition,
disease and poverty – e.g. A Ugandan spends
Shs. 25,000 per month on sanitation related
diseases, >400 children die weekly etc.

• At least 2.5 b are affected globally and

about 23 millions Ugandans, basing on
2014 Census results (UBOS, 2016).
 Objectives of providing sanitation
• The principal objectives of providing sanitation are:
– to improve public health;
– to minimise environmental pollution.
 Beyond these two, are other personal reasons, often
considered much more important! What are they??
 desire for privacy and to avoid embarrassment,
 wanting to be modern,
 desire for convenience and to avoid the discomforts or dangers of the
bush (e.g., snakes, pests, rain), and
 wanting social acceptance or status.

AND SPECIFICALLY:
 for women: reduce the risk of rape and/or attack experienced when
going to public latrines or the bush to defecate.
 for girls: reduce school absenteeism by staying at home during
menstruation.
Objectives of providing sanitation Cont’d
Beyond improving public health and minimizing
environmental pollution as well as other reasons
stated above, there are also economic benefits of
improved sanitation include:

 lowering health system costs,

 fewer days lost at work or at school through illness
or through caring for an ill relative, and
 convenience time savings (time not spent queuing
at shared sanitation facilities, public toilets or
walking for open defecation).
 A sanitation ladder for improved functions
7
Integrated resource management –
indicators depend on flow-stream
6
Nutrient & hazardous waste containment –
indicators depend on flow-stream
5
Nutrient reuse – (i) X% of excreted N, P, K is reused
for crop production, (ii) Y% of used water is reused
4
Pathogen & hazardous waste reduction – indicators
depend on flow stream
3
Greywater management – (i) no stagnant water in
compound or in streets, (ii) no vectors (iii) no pollution
2
Access – (i) 24-hr access to facility year-round, (ii) privacy, personal security and
shelter, (iii) preferrable indoors and accessible to men, women, children, elderly
1
Excreta containment – (i) in use, (ii) no vectors, (iii) no faecal matter, (iv) hand-washing
facility in use (v) can withstand stormwater events

Adapted from Kvarnström et al., 2010

 HISTORY & CURRENT SITUATION IN UGANDA
• Until 1970’s sanitation coverage high~95%
• Civil strife & social unrest 1970’s - 1980’s
• By 1984-85, sanitation coverage was 23%
• There have been some improvements since 1986
• According to WESPR (2019), by June 2019
– Access to basic sanitation (rural) = 16.6%
– Access to basic sanitation (Urban) = 37.4%
– Access to safely managed (rural) = 7.1%
– Access to safely managed (Urban) = 42.8%
• Other figures, according to WESPR (2019) are:
– Access to hand-washing at household (Rural): 36%
– Access to hand-washing at household (Urban): 40%
– Access to hand-washing in schools: 42%
• Sewer coverage in Kampala is only about 10%, and
probably less than 5% in the whole country.
 MDGs
• At the UN Millennium summit in New York in
2000, 149 world leaders from 40 countries
unanimously agreed on the millennium
declaration and committed to:
1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
(2) achieve universal primary education;
(3) promote gender equality and empower women;
(4) reduce child mortality;
(5) improve maternal health;
(6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;
(7) ensure environmental sustainability; and
(8) develop a global partnership for development
 MDGs
• Later on, in 2002, the Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development was adopted.

• This elaborated on DG 7 and made targets. Among

the targets for MDG 7 was to halve the proportion of
the world’s population without safe drinking water and
basic sanitation between 1990 and 2015 (UN, 2002).
• Until today, 1 billion people practice open
defecation!

• Were the world leaders joking?

 And then........
• In 2007, out of a survey of 11,000 global
respondents, the BMJ recognized sanitation
engineering to be a major breakthrough;
greater than the discoveries of antibiotics,
anaesthesia, vaccines and DNA since 1840,
giving sanitation recognition in saving
human lives and reducing poverty!

• The UN general assembly declared 2008

the International Year of Sanitation (IYS).
 POST 2015 (The MGD Deadline)
Sustainablility is key – i.e., the Sustainable Development goals (SDGs)
Website: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300

Question is: Will they be achieved?

With respect to water and sanitation….

• Sustainable Development
Goal 6 aims to:
ensure availability and
sustainable management of
water and sanitation for all.
 Under GOAL 6, the targets are
• 6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe
and affordable drinking water for all
• 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable
sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying
special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in
vulnerable situations
• 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous
chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated
wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe
reuse globally
• 6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across
all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of
freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce
the number of people suffering from water scarcity
 Under GOAL 6, the targets are
• 6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources
management at all levels, including through transboundary
cooperation as appropriate
• 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems,
including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and
lakes
• 6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-
building support to developing countries in water- and
sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water
harvesting,
• desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling
and reuse technologies
• 6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local
communities in improving water and sanitation management
 WASH Sector SDGs and Related Targets/Indicators
GOAL SDG GLOBAL TARGET SDG GLOBAL INDICATOR
Ending open 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and 6.2.1 Population practising open
defecation equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and defecation
end open defecation, paying special attention
to the needs of women and girls and those in
vulnerable situations

Achieving 1.4 By 2030, ensure all men and women, in 1.4.1 Population living in households
universal particular the poor and vulnerable, have with access to basic services
access to basic equal rights to economic resources, as well (including basic drinking water,
services as access to basic services….. sanitation and hygiene)
Progress 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and 6.2.1 Population using safely
towards safely equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and managed sanitation services
managed end open defecation, paying special attention 6.2.1 Population with a basic
services to the needs of women and girls and those in handwashing facility with soap
vulnerable situations and water available on premises
 FSM AND THE SDGs – WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITION
SAFELY MANAGED Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households
and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and
treated offsite
BASIC Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households

LIMITED Use of improved facilities shared between two or more households

UNIMPROVED Use of pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines or

bucket latrines
OPEN DEFECATION Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of
water, beaches or other open spaces or with solid waste.
Note: Improved facilities include flush/pour flush piped to sewer systems, septic
tanks or pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets or pit
latrines with slabs.

• In 2015, only 39% of the global population (2.9 billion

people) used a safely managed sanitation service;
i.e, excreta safely disposed of in situ or treated off-site.
Challenges relating to sanitation provision and FSM in Africa

Rapidly increasing urban population

Sewerage is
too costly for Focus on OSS Informal
whole city toilet settlements
populations installations neglected

Existing Often, there is a Informal

policies and lack of settlements seem
legislation do consideration for to be there to stay -
not adequately the whole FSM Can their illegality
promote FSM services chain be reversed?
 The FSM challenges broken down at the various components of
the FS services chain include…

GENERATION AT
USER INTERFACE STORAGE COLLECTION & TRANSPORT TREATMENT REUSE

• High costs of on- • Poorly constructed • Lack of price regulation for • Lack of sufficient • Lack of innovations to
site sanitation that can’t contain FS emptying services, capacity to treat FS improve Resource
facilities, • Poorly operated • Poor access to oss systems • Lack of Recovery,
• Lack of innovations containment – non (septic tanks/pit latrines etc), decentralized • Lack of government support
to improve OSS faecal material • Long haulage distances to FSTPs wastewater/FS – FS valorisation needs
provision fractions high coupled with traffic jams treatment facilities Gov’t support – Payment
for environmental benefits!
 Challenge of providing OSS
PIT COLLAPSE!

Approx. UGX 10,000,000/ was

lost and life could also be lost

Digging a new one when

Raising the pit! pit fills, soon all possible Chaotic! What latrine can
space will be exhausted! serve?
 The challenges of provision of OSS are often
intertwined with those of providing other services!

Various forms of
scavenging, by
animals, and by
people

Solid wastes blocking

drains
 Additional challenges of Conventional
sanitation systems

Long hoses, bursts! But why?? Lack of access…

Why? No standards or their enforcement!
 Additional challenges

What are the consequences, ….innocently …Do

they know the risks involved?
The challenge, involves also, unsafe manual emptying
practices and lack of treatment/disposal facilities
Main Technological and Non-Technological
issues to address in sanitation provision
• Lack of investment
– Less favour from politicians compared to high prestige projects e.g., airports,
dams etc
– For similar reasons, high cost sewerage favoured over low-cost sanitation
• Failure to conduct evaluations of sanitation interventions
to determine whether or not they were successful,
• Tendency to avoid new technological or implementation
approaches – and lack of community involvement,
• Failure to relax conservative design codes in order to
reduce pipe diameters, gradients and depths (and thus
decrease costs), while at the same time maintaining
sound physical design/engineering principles,
• Insufficient cost recovery, leading to unsustainable
systems BUT we need Sustainable sanitation systems.
 In the Context of Sanitation…
• A sustainable sanitation system is one that:
– protects and promotes human health,
– does not contribute to environmental degradation or depletion of the
resource base,
– is technically and institutionally appropriate,
– economically/financially viable and socially acceptable.

• The sustainability criteria is therefore related to:

– Health,
– Environment and natural resources,
– Technology and operation,
– Financial and economic issues,
– Socio-cultural and institutional aspects.
 In the context of excreta disposal, what sanitation system is
sustainable under the various circumstances?

• Based on the criteria definition of sustainable

sanitation, the following could have aspects of
sustainability for:
High-density urban:
• Simplified sewerage
• Low-cost combined sewerage
• Community-managed sanitation blocks
Rural and medium-density urban: PeePoo
• VIP latrines (single pit & alternating twin pits) bag?
• Dry UDDTs – DVUD and solar toilets
• Composting latrines
• PF toilets (single pit & alternating twin pits)
• Fossa Alterna and Arborloos
• Biogas toilets or biolatrines
The peepoo bag
• Peepoo bags were developed with the
concept of “flying toilets” in mind, as the
motivation.
• The peepoo bag has outer dimensions of
15x40 cm2 with a gauze liner and is coated on
the inside with a film of urea (4g) as the
sanitising agent.
• The concept is that by the contact between
urea and feaces, breakdown of urea into
ammonium and carbonate raises the pH and
triggers hygienization, resulting in elimination
of viruses, bacteria and parasites.
 On-site Sanitation
• Wet system – WCs, septic tanks, sewers
etc. Suitable for urban areas
• Dry systems – non-water borne system. Pit
latrines, improved types e.g., VIP. Mainly
used in rural areas
• Ecosan systems – Can be used in rural,
urban and peri-urban areas; by a range of
varying socio-economic backgrounds, low-
medium-high income earners
What are the benefits of on-site sanitation?
 Factors affecting selection of a
sanitation system
• Availability of manpower for design and
construction
• Availability of local materials
• Ground water topography
• Ecological criteria, i.e., impact of system on
surroundings
• Reduction of nuisance
• Health criteria
• Affordability to the community, i.e., capital cost,
O&M costs
• Social cultural aspects
 Types of on-site sanitation systems
Pit latrine - Site Selection and General Design
considerations
• The pit should be as large as possible. However, it
should not be more than 1.5 m wide, otherwise
construction of the cover slab will be expensive
• The site should not be uphill from a water source
and should be at least 30 m from the source;
• It should be approximately 7 m away from the
nearest corner of the house;
• MoH guideline stipulates the base of the pit to be at
least 1.5 m above the groundwater level;
• Population density should be such that there is
enough land for construction of new pits in case of
filling of the old ones;
 Pit latrine – Site selection and General
Design considerations cont’d
• Soils with low permeability (below 2.5 mm/hr) are
unsuitable for pit latrines as the liquid portion of excreta
is unable to infiltrate into the soil
• Soil conditions should be favourable for pit excavation,
else the pits should be lined.
• The latrine should be at least 3 m away from a recently
filled latrine or compost pit, and
• Should be sited at least 10 m away, but not more than
50 m from a classroom, & not more than 20 m from a
dormitory;
• Different stances should be provided for men and
women
• Pit lining should be done where high groundwater table
necessitates construction of elevated pit latrines
Raised/Elevated latrines

This type is referred

to as the fossa alterna
 Design considerations for pit latrines
Parameter Design values
Sludge accumulation rate, C 35-70 l/person/yr. In Africa, a design value, C = 0.06 m3/person/yr is
usually used for dry pits where water is used for anal cleansing;
where solids are used for anal cleansing, C = 0.09 m3/person/yr; for
wet pits, C = 0.04 m3/person/yr where water is used for anal
cleansing and C = 0.06 m3/person/yr where solids are used for anal
cleansing
Width of pit/diameter 1 - 1.5m

Depth (MOH guidelines)
Typical design life
5m (1.5m above WT), Allow 0.5m free space at the top of the pit to
allow for demolition, emptying, avoids splashing, etc. Allowance
should be made if hard materials e.g. leaves, stones, etc. are used for
anal cleansing.
4 – 15 years (usually 10 years is desired)

Wet pit is where the pit is extended below the ground water table as opposed to dry pit where the
pit is not extended below the ground water table
 Solids accumulation rate
Excreta deposited in the pit have two essential components:

• The liquid fraction (mainly urine), together with small amounts

of water that enters the pit due to anal cleansing and slab
washing which ultimately infiltrates into the surrounding soil;

• The faecal solids that are digested anaerobically to produce:

– Gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, which
are exhausted from the pit via the squat hole or the vent pipe; and
– Soluble compounds which are either further oxidized in the pit or are
carried into the surrounding soil by the infiltration liquid fraction

Volume of Pit (m3) = Sludge Accumulation Rate × Number of Users × Design Life
(m3/person/year) (persons) (years)
V = CxPxN
Where V = effective pit volume, C = sludge accumulation rate
P = number of persons who will be using the latrine, N = Design life in years
 Design of pit latrine cont’d
• The total pit size for a pit latrine not exceeding 4.0 m in depth
can be determined using the following relationship V =
1.33xCxPxN

• The factor 1.33 is incorporated to ensure a clear space above

the excreta remains at the end of the design period. The
factor will allow 75% of the pit to be full at the end of the
design period. In other words, 0.75V = CPN, meaning that V =
(CPN/0.75) = 1.33 CPN.

• Qn: Design a low-cost simple pit latrine for a family of six persons. The soil in the
area is fairly permeable and stable. The ground water table is 5m below the
ground level. Determine the size of the pit required for a period of five years. The
family uses water for anal cleansing. HINT, consider the pit as a dry pit, i.e, pit is
not extended below the ground water table. Thus from table 3, C = 0.06 m3/c/yr.
Further, consider a circular pit, usually in range of 1.0 -1. 5 m diameter, for this
case, lets consider a diameter of 1.25m. Thus V = 2.4 m, Cross sectional pit area =
1.23 m, hence depth of pit = 1.95m, Take 2m. Please note that a rectangular pit
can also be considered. If we take 1.25 x 1.25 m; the required depth becomes 1.54
m. Choose a depth of 1.7m
 Advantages of pit latrines
• Least costly
• Easily constructed and maintained
• Structurally safe and therefore free from
the risk of children falling into it and thus
less frightening for children
• Prevents hook worm transmission; and
• Offers a better solution than open
defecation and unhygienic hanging latrines
 Disadvantages of pit latrines
• Flies lay their eggs in faeces within poorly
built latrines. Increase in the fly population
increases spread of diseases caused by
the faecal pathogens they carry
• Odour nuissance
• Improper lining of pits may lead to collapse
of the super structure
 Question
• In an effort to discourage people from open
defecation, the local authority in a village offers
pre-cast concrete rings of 1.0 m diameter and
concrete slabs to cover the pits at a very
subsidized rate. Design a simple pit latrine for an
average family of 7 persons who use water for
anal cleansing. The ground water table is below
5.0 m and the latrine is to serve a family for at
least 4 years.
End of Presentation
~ Thanks for
listening