Cited by 96Wastewater Treatment and ReuseChild Nutrition and Water AccessFecal contamination and water quality

Safely Managed Sanitation for All Means Fecal Sludge Management for At Least 1.8 Billion People in Low and Middle Income Countries

Berendes, David M., Sumner, Trent A., Brown, Joe M.·2017·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Although global access to sanitation is increasing, safe management of fecal waste is a rapidly growing challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The goal of this study was to evaluate the current need for fecal sludge management (FSM) in LMICs by region, urban/rural status, and wealth. Recent Demographic and Health Survey data from 58 countries (847 685 surveys) were used to classify households by sanitation facility (facilities needing FSM, sewered facilities, ecological sanitation/other, or no facilities). Onsite piped water infrastructure was quantified to approximate need for wastewater management and downstream treatment. Over all surveyed nations, 63% of households used facilities requiring FSM, totaling approximately 1.8 billion people. Rural areas had similar proportions of toilets requiring FSM as urban areas. FSM needs scaled inversely with wealth: in the poorest quintile, households' sanitation facilities were almost 170 times more likely to require FSM (vs sewerage) than in the richest quintile. About one out of five households needing FSM had onsite piped water infrastructure, indicating domestic or reticulated wastewater infrastructure may be required if lacking for safe management of aqueous waste streams. FSM strategies must be included in future sanitation investment to achieve safe management of fecal wastes and protect public health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.6b06019

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berendes, D. M., Sumner, T. A., & Brown, J. M.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Berendes, David M.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2017-02-14
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
3074-3083
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2580877416
Cited by
96
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
Keywords
fecal sludge management, sanitation access, low- and middle-income countries, household sanitation facilities, urban-rural differences, wealth inequality, wastewater management, ecological sanitation, sanitation investment
MeSH terms
Feces, Humans, Income, Rural Population, Sanitation, Sewage, Water Supply

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review