Talk:Fecal sludge management

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Evidence for a statement that dedicated fecal sludge treatment plants are better?

I would like to see firm evidence for this statement if it should stay in "This material should preferably be treated at dedicated fecal sludge treatment plants, instead of municipal sewage treatment plants, unless these are specifically designed and sized to take this load.^{[citation needed]}" - when you look at the situation in developed countries, fecal sludge (from septic tanks) is always discharged to municipal wastewater treatment plants and that's quite fine. It's usually well within the load that the plant can handle. The problem in developing countries is usually that the municipal sewage treatment plant is already overloaded and not working and then it gets additional fecal sludge... Therefore, I don't think this sentence is clear and helpful and that the "preferably" is correct in all cases. EvMsmile (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Preferably" is correct in essentially all cases. Please cite the entire Chapter 9 of the book about Co-treatment in WWTP, which could summarized in 4 words: "Do not do it". I translated the FSM book into Spanish, so I know it inside and out. WWTPs are designed for relatively constant and uniform flows and characteristics, while FS is very much the opposite: truckloads all at once and then nothing; one truckload days old, the next years old, the third thick, the fourth dilute. Therefore, FS can easily overload a WWTP's capacity to deal with solids and provide oxygen --Bio-CLC (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bio-CLC (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that chapter and we can cite it but I think we should make it clear that there is a difference between developing countries and developed countries here. As I said above, in developed countries, that little bit of additional fecal sludge makes no difference to a large treatment plant. The book is only about developed countries, whereas the article is about both (albeit with a focus on developing countries). As long as we make that clear, then it's fine. The bottom line is how much fecal sludge is added to the treatment pant in comparison to the steady load of domestic wastewater. If the proportion is small, then it's no problem for the treatment plant. EvMsmile (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the statement once more; I think now it is simplified but correct; and have added reference to chapter 9 of that book. EvMsmile (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. In Vietnam it was the recommendation of a team of international engineers to pursue co-treatment, but in this case it is much different than you describe. Here, the wastewater treatment plants are designed for combine sewerage. We are talking up to 30,000 cubic meters per day with very low BODs at maybe 70 - 100 mg/L. We are only talking about a 500 cubic meters of septage per day so the percent by volume of septage is less than 2%. If you do the math, the addition of the septage increases the influent BOD fairly significantly (like 38 mg/l), but when looking at the efficiency of the treatment plant, the effluent is only raised a few mg/L of BOD. The benefits of i) not having to spend for the stand alone plant, ii) not having to site and evaluate new locations for plants, and iii) not having to relocate people for new plants are powerful motivators to explore co-treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmrobbins10 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dmrobbins10, that's what I thought. So should we modify the content fo the article accordingly or is the current wording OK? Do we have a good reference to cite? EvMsmile (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good reference from WB on justification for co-treatment at Project 7, Maynilad Water Services Company, Philippines: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/832641468298448554/pdf/E12880v90EAP1EAP1P089082.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmrobbins10 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (remember to use the four tildes at the end of your comment to sign the comment). The points made in the second paragraph make sense but the document is not really a "highly reputable" source, so I would rather cite a better document. It is not a WB document, just happens to be on their server. The main point I think is "does the sewage treatment plant have spare capacity or not" (if the STP is already in place). EvMsmile (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. Thanks. Also I think the text as it now appears is correct on this point. Dmrobbins10 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is old but such an important discussion. Many cities in India are opting for co-treatment as existing STPs have substantial spare capacity. As I understand it is okay if FS is adequately diluted or gradually received, both of which need separate arrangements at the STP. Will it be worth checking how these cities are managing to cotreat? Sparsh85 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparsh85, yes if you come across any good publications that discuss the co-treatment procedures in India it would be good to add relevant information to this article. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The second paragraph in the lead is discussion only about emptying of OSS but using the term FSM services. I think that needs to be suitably edited.Sparsh85 (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall structure and changes within (Feb 2021)

I list below some changes that are required in my understanding. I shall work on them gradually. EMsmile Dmrobbins10 Bio-CLC let me know what do you think.

Background does not explain the increase in interest in FSM in the last few years. I assume it is because conventional sewers are not feasible and financially viable as well as the push from including safe management of excreta in the sanitation ladder.
current practices should be discussed using components of the service chain as headings instead of type of geography.
The sub-section titled 'elements of successful programmes' should be later in the article.
Technology components should precede design considerations.

Design considerations need to discuss considerations for each of the components followed by considerations applicable to the programme.
Besides, is it technology or infrastructure required for providing FSM services? If it is infrastructure, I'd add a sub-section on on-site systems and related design considerations as well in the next sub-section. Sparsh85 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, other terms need to be explained under the heading Terminology - faecal sludge, faecal sludge management. Sparsh85 (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is both: technology is the concept and infrastructure is the physical thing that is built. Bio-CLC (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for this initiative. Please let me know if you want me to help with anything. Bio-CLC (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New open access book on FSM - to be used to improve this article

A new book has recently come out about FSM: https://iwaponline.com/ebooks/book/823/Methods-for-Faecal-Sludge-Analysis . It's open access so we can easily use it to improve this article. I am planning to work with one of the authors, Linda Strande, to utilise content of this book to overhaul and improve the article. Some quick initial comments by Linda which will need addressing include:

Purposes: Isn’t the main purpose of FSM to protect public health? And then environmental health? This section talks about problems, job creation, etc, but never clearly states the purpose of FSM.
Operation and management: This section is a mix of different definitions. 1. sanitation workers, 2 different levels of population densities, 3. elements of successful programs
Is it possible to change the outline of the Wiki? There is not a clear, logical flow of information.
Design considerations: Characteristics of FS - Please refer to section 1.2 of methods book for a more concise overview of characteristics.
Selecting the operator of FSM services: Again, this section does not really follow a logical flow of information.
Treatment processes: For this section the WHO guidelines on sanitation and health would be very useful to introduce levels of technology that are established (e.g. drying beds), transferring from other types of WWT (e.g. many dewatering technologies), or innovative (e.g. BSF), and why this is important from a risk management perspective. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274939/9789241514705-eng.pdf
Synergy with other programs: See: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-030620-042304
Cotreatment with wastewater: There is also more precise information available on this topic. Here is a youtube video about cotreatment, there is also the new-ish IWA publication https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu6QFVtl03s
Composting: IWMI has many great references EMsmile (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have today worked on addressing some of these comments. I think I managed to address the first five comments but have not yet worked on the remaining four comments. EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expert edits

As part of the Wikipedia project to improve articles relevant to SDG 6, substantive factual edits have been sourced from Linda Strande (EAWAG). Readability improvements are also being made. Any feedback is welcome. ASRASR (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]