China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Composting
Published in Sandy Cairncross, Richard Feachem, Environmental Health Engineering in the Tropics, 2018
Sandy Cairncross, Richard Feachem
The scientific principles which apply to the composting of municipal wastes also apply to individual composting toilets. In practice, these have hardly ever achieved aerobic conditions in a tropical setting, and anaerobic processes take many months (usually at least six months) to produce a compost which is relatively free of pathogens. Ideally, carbon/nitrogen ratios should be adjusted to initial levels of 30 to 40 by the addition of vegetable wastes, ash or sawdust, and urine should be excluded or drained off; in practice, it is difficult to train the users to do this reliably so that composting toilets are not recommended for introduction to poor communities.
Availability and readiness of communal health services: Results from 2015 Vietnam District and Commune Health Facility Survey
Published in International Journal of Healthcare Management, 2021
Quynh Anh Tran, Hoang Le Tu, Minh Hoang Van
Overall, 98.8% CHSs had adequate sanitation facilities in the form of composting and semi-composting toilet types. An average of 95.9% of facilities had access to an improved water source. Rural CHSs significantly differed from urban CHSs regarding improved water sources. Computers with internet connection were available in 95% of CHSs. All urban and rural facilities had access to grid power and landline phones as the main communication equipment. One half of CHSs (54.5%) had transportation means in emergency cases. On average, all CHSs in urban and rural areas had at least five of six tracer items for basic amenities. A significant difference was found between rural and urban regarding the availability of basic amenities. In general, readiness score for rural CHS did not significantly differ from those of urban in basic amenities.
Prevalence of Trachoma in Senegal: Results of Baseline Surveys in 17 Districts
Published in Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 2018
Boubacar Sarr, Mactar Sissoko, Mawo Fall, Lionel Nizigama, Daniel Cohn, Rebecca Willis, Brian Fuller, Maggie O’Neil, Anthony W Solomon
Household-level access to improved water source for face washing ranged by district from 16.6% to 87.0% (Table 2). “Improved” sources of water included piped water into dwelling; piped water to yard/plot; public tap or standpipe; tubewell or borehole; protected dug well; protected spring; and rainwater.17,23 Respondents from nearly half the households (47.5%) reported using an unprotected dug well as the main source of water for washing faces. Household-level access to improved latrines ranged by district from 7.3% to 93.1% (Table 2). “Improved” sanitation included flush toilet; piped sewer system; septic tank; flush/pour flush to pit latrine; ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP); pit latrine with slab; composting toilet; and flush/pour flush to unknown place.17,23 67.0% of respondents reported having a round trip to collect water of less than 30 minutes (Table 2). It should be noted that within a given household, responses about availability and use of latrines could be provided by several different respondents.