The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laboratory protocols for testing the efficacy of commercial pit latrine additives
Open accessAbstract
There is considerable national interest in the use of commercial microbially derived products for controlling the rate of accumulation of the contents of pit latrines. Manufacturers claim that some of these products can reduce accumulation rates, prevent the pit from ever filling up, or even result in decreases in pit contents volume. Prior to this research, there have been no scientific publications that have conclusively supported or refuted these claims.This project undertook to perform reproducible laboratory tests that would quantify the effect of commercial pit latrine additive products. Protocols were developed and tested on a range of different commercial products sold for their ability to control the rate of accumulation of pit latrine contents. The effect of commercial additives on mass loss from VIP sludge in 300 g honey jars was compared to mass loss from similar units subjected to no treatment and treatment with water.The purpose of these experiments was to separate and quantify the effect of micro-organisms or enzymes originating from commercial pit latrine additives from the effect of natural processes within the pit latrine sludge (including digestion by micro-organisms in the VIP sludge and dehydration) and the effects of other actions associated with treatment, such as the addition of water.Results indicated that insignificant mass loss occurred in all anaerobic test units, while significant mass loss occurred in all other test units. However, there was no statistically significant difference between any of the different treatments in the aerobic units. Investigation of analytical data from the test units indicated that mass loss in aerobic units was due to a combination of dehydration through evaporation of moisture and biological stabilisation processes, and that the latter were not significantly enhanced by the addition of commercial pit latrine products. It was concluded that there was no evidence to support claims that pit latrine additives could extend the life of a pit latrine.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, K Foxon, et al. [71] reported no statistically significant effect on the rate of mass loss from the sludge samples under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions by nine additives.”
From Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances (2015) · cites this paper as [71]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It was concluded that commercial pit latrine additives did not accelerate the rate of decomposition of pit latrine contents.”
From Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances (2015) · cites this paper as [71]
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
(1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 172
(1995) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 30
(1998) · Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- STILL DA (2002) After the pit latrine is full....What then? Effective options for pit latrine management. Proc. WISA Bienn. Conf. 19-23 May 2002, Durban, South Africa.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world
Bond, T., & Templeton, M. R. (2011) · Energy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1016/j.esd.2011.09.003 · Cited by 707
Nakagiri, A., Niwagaba, C. B., Nyenje, P. M., Kulabako, R. N., Tumuhairwe, J. B., & Kansiime, F. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2772-z · Cited by 133
“[71] South Africa additives Laboratory experiments on pit latrine samples No statistically significant effect on rate of mass loss”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Foxon, K., Mkhize, S., Reddy, M., & Buckley, C.
- Affiliations
- University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Water SA
- Publisher
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Published
- 2012-05-22
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0378-4738 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143272103
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Water SA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Water Research Commission
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Composting and Vermicomposting Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Keywords
- mass loss, anaerobic digestion, sludge dewatering
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
