Cited by 431Fecal contamination and water qualityWastewater Treatment and ReuseWater Quality and Pollution Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pit Latrines and Their Impacts on Groundwater Quality: A Systematic Review

Open access
Graham, Jay P., Polizzotto, Matthew L.·2013·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Background: Pit latrines are one of the most common human excreta disposal systems in low-income countries, and their use is on the rise as countries aim to meet the sanitation-related target of the Millennium Development Goals. There is concern, however, that discharges of chemical and microbial contaminants from pit latrines to groundwater may negatively affect human health. Objectives: Our goals were to a) calculate global pit latrine coverage, b) systematically review empirical studies of the impacts of pit latrines on groundwater quality, c) evaluate latrine siting standards, and d) identify knowledge gaps regarding the potential for and consequences of groundwater contamination by latrines. Methods: We used existing survey and population data to calculate global pit latrine coverage. We reviewed the scientific literature on the occurrence of contaminants originating from pit latrines and considered the factors affecting transport of these contaminants. Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles, books, and reports identified using Web of ScienceSM, PubMed, Google, and document reference lists. Discussion: We estimated that approximately 1.77 billion people use pit latrines as their primary means of sanitation. Studies of pit latrines and groundwater are limited and have generally focused on only a few indicator contaminants. Although groundwater contamination is frequently observed downstream of latrines, contaminant transport distances, recommendations based on empirical studies, and siting guidelines are variable and not well aligned with one another. Conclusions: In order to improve environmental and human health, future research should examine a larger set of contextual variables, improve measurement approaches, and develop better criteria for siting pit latrines.

Overview

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 · 10.1289/ehp.1206028

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Padmasiri JP, Jayatilake GM, Kotuwegedara JPK, 1992, Groundwater pollution from double pit latrines. In: Water, Environment and Management: Proceedings of the 18th WEDC Conference, 30 August–3 September 1992, Kathmandu, Nepal. 239–241
  2. Still DA, Nash SR . 2002. Groundwater contamination due to pit latrines located in a sandy aquifer: a case study from Maputaland. In: Water Institute of Southern Africa Biennial Conference. Durban, South Africa:Water Institute of Southern Africa, 1–6.Available: http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/STILL%20and%20NASH%202002%20Groundwater%20contamination%20due%20to%20pit%20latrines%20located%20in%20a%20sandy%20aquifer.pdf [accessed 29 March 2013].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Graham, J. P., & Polizzotto, M. L.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Graham, Jay P.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2013-03-22
Volume
121
Issue
5
Pages
521-530
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2084155931
Cited by
431
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Pollution Assessment
Keywords
pit latrines, groundwater contamination, sanitation, microbial contaminants, chemical contaminants, contaminant transport, latrine coverage, low-income countries
MeSH terms
Ammonia, Chlorides, Humans, Nitrates, Sanitation, Toilet Facilities, Water Microbiology, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Pollution, Groundwater

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