Cited by 3Wastewater Treatment and ReuseConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater TreatmentUrban Stormwater Management Solutions

The Potential of Subsurface Infiltration for the Treatment of Biofil Toilet Technology Effluent

Open access
Peter Owusu-Antwi, Richard Buamah, Helen Essandoh, Adane Sewhunegn Molla, Esi Awuah, Kweku Akuam Anno·2015·Management Studies

Abstract

BTT effluent and sampled at ports spaced at 0.3 m, 0.8 m, and 1.5 m depths. Using the samples, parameters like COD, BOD5, TSS, T-N, NO3-N, NO2-N, PO4-P, and pathogenic indicator microbes were monitored. RLS and SS columns efficiently removed COD, BOD5, and TSS from the BTT effluent below the Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (GH EPA) guideline values. Up to 99% COD removal were observed in RLS column. A two to five log pathogen removal was recorded for the soil columns. The RLS and SS were found to have a high efficacy for contaminant removal with up to 80% of all contaminants being removed at a depth of 0.3 m along the soil columns. Thus the subsurface infiltration system can serve as a promising technology for the BTT effluent treatment. The study recommends the incorporation of infiltration systems to the BTT especially for areas with high water table or clayey soils.

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 · 10.17265/2328-2185/2015.1112.003

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • HDPE barrel was chosen as the suitable excreta containment because it is relatively hard, resistant to impact and can be subjected to temperatures of up to 120 C without being affected.

    “HDPE barrel was chosen as the suitable excreta containment because it is relatively hard and resistant to impact and can be subjected to temperatures of up to 120 C without being affected [30] .”

    From Early live-prototype testing of a low-cost latrine technology for rural and peri-urban communities: The case of a modified pour-flush latrine (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) describes soil-column treatment of Biofil Toilet Technology effluent, not the selection or properties of an excreta container. Searches for HDPE barrels, impact resistance, and a 120 °C temperature limit found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • HDPE materials are extremely resistant to many chemicals such as acids, alcohols, aldehydes, esters, bases and oils.

    “It has also been reported that HDPE materials are extremely resistant to many chemicals such as acids, alcohols, aldehydes, esters, bases and oils [30] .”

    From Early live-prototype testing of a low-cost latrine technology for rural and peri-urban communities: The case of a modified pour-flush latrine (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

    The available abstract describes soil-column treatment of Biofil Toilet Technology effluent, and the retrieved passages do not address HDPE’s chemical resistance. Searches for HDPE and for resistance to the listed chemicals found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bitton, G. (2005). Wastewater microbiology (3rd ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  2. Clesceri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E., & Eaton, A. D. (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
  3. Fox, P., Narayanaswamy, K., Genz, A., & Drewes, J. E. (2001b). Water quality transformation during soil aquifer treatment at the mesa northwest water reclamation. Water Science and Technology, 43(10), 343-350.
  4. Idelovitch, E., Icekson-Tal, N., Avraham, O., & Michail, M. (2003). The long term performance of soil aquifer treatment for effluent reuse water science and technology. Water Supply, 3(4), 239-246.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Owusu-Antwi, P., Buamah, R., Essandoh, H., Molla, A. S., Awuah, E., & Anno, K. A.
Venue
Management Studies
Published
2015-06-28
Volume
3
Issue
6
ISSN
2328-2185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2550862340
Cited by
3
References
23
Citations by year
2020: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
Management Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
Keywords
subsurface infiltration, slow sand filter, soil columns, COD removal, BOD5 removal, total suspended solids, nitrogen removal, phosphorus removal, pathogen removal, water table, clay soil

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