Preventing and Controlling: Internal Parasites of Hogs

CONTENTS Damage..... 3 Spread........ 4 Prevention and Control.......... 4 Housing and pasture............. 5 Separation from older hogs..... 5 Swine-sanitation system....... 5 Treatment........ 7 Roundworms................. 8 The large intestinal round-worm, or ascarid......... 8 Stomach worms.......... 12 The intestinal threadworm..... 13 The swine kidney worm......... 13 Lung worms............ 17 Nodular worms......... 20 The whipworm.......... 2

Sanitation System for Underdeveloped Countries

Currently, there are over 2.5 billion people living in the world without having access to proper sanitation. This is primarily because of lack of access to water and/or their financial situation to afford a sanitation system. Therefore, there is a need for a sanitation system which can flush in less water and is inexpensive. This project involves the creation of a sanitation system for use in impoverished areas with little access to water or electricity

Effect of sanitation system on groundwater

This paper discussed shallow well monitoring to find out : 1) Whether existing sanitation systems are polluting the selected hand dug wells water supply sources . 2) The nature of pollution hazard in terms of microbiological (coliform) and some physicochemical parameters. 3) The lateral distance from possible soak-away / pit latrine to the shallow well. 4) The static water level of selected shallow groundwater sources. 5) Recommend possible solution to the problems regarding groundwater contamination

Field testing of an onsite sanitation system on apartment building blackwater using biological treatment and electrochemical disinfection

The Closed Loop Advanced Sanitation System (CLASS) was designed to treat, disinfect, and recycle toilet blackwater from existing flush toilets in a multi-story apartment building. Two systems were tested at two unique sites in Coimbatore, India for a combined 7500+ treatment hours resulting in more than 180 000 L of treated water. The CLASS prototypes used a combination of biological pretreatment and electrochemical oxidation processes to produce treated water that nearly met the stringent requirements outlined in the standard ISO 30500. The nutrient and organic loading from the toilet blackwater was predominantly reduced by over 85–95% and 80–87%, respectively, through biological processes that were achieved using either a sequencing batch reactor (SBR, site A) or an anaerobic–aerobic biodigester (EcoSan, site B). Complete disinfection of E. coli with nil CFU per ml was achieved using electrochemical processes that also served to remove the remaining organic and nutrient loading to over 90–96%. The treated water was reused for flushing by the residents of the apartment building for 89 days

Periurban sanitation: what's the problem?

To meet the WHO/UNICEF target of ‘Water & Sanitation for All by 2025’ some 4.4 billion people will have to be provided with improved sanitation during 2001−2025, and around half of these are/will be in ‘urban’ areas – but in reality we are talking about periurban areas. Given that most population growth over the next few decades will occur in ‘urban’ (again, really periurban) areas of developing countries, periurban sanitation will have to become much more important than it already is. Our current focus is on achieving the sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goals, but these efforts will have to be doubled if we are to meet the WHO/UNICEF 2025 sanitation target in periurban areas, and then maintained for the next quarter century as we seek to meet the sanitation needs of the additional two billion or so people expected in periurban areas by 2050. So the Big Question is: How can we provide affordable sanitation to these very large numbers of poor people in periurban areas in developing countries? The answer to this question depends in part on the population density: at low population densities on-site sanitation systems are normally feasible, but (and as we have known since the early 1980s), even if there is sufficient space for them, they may not necessarily be the cheapest option (and, because we are attempting to serve poor and very poor people, we have to consider cost); and, of course, at high population densities on-site systems become infeasible as there is no space for them. In addition to being affordable, the chosen sanitation system has to be both socially acceptable and institutionally feasible. Consider the typical periurban situation: a high population density, one too high to permit on-site sanitation systems. What are the ‘best’ solutions for sanitation? If affordable, the system of choice would normally be simplified sewerage (also known as ‘condominial’ sewerage). With this sanitation system we should remember that in Natal in northeast Brazil, where it was developed in the early 1980s, it became cheaper than on-site sanitation at the relatively low population density of ~160 persons per ha, there were no connection charges and the monthly charge for the service was only USD 1.50; and that in Chisty Nagar in Orangi, Karachi, Pakistan, where Brazilian-style simplified sewerage was first installed in Asia in the mid-1980s, the residents obtained their water (only ~27 litres per person per day) from public standpipes, thus demonstrating that a plentiful on-plot water supply is not a sine qua non for the system. Simplified/condominial sewerage is one of the components of the very successful ‘Slum networking’ programme in India, and it has also been used in small villages in northeast Brazil. It is socioculturally very acceptable as it appears to its users to be similar to conventional sewerage, so their sanitation system is the ‘same’ as that enjoyed by the rich. It is also institutionally acceptable simply because it is a sewerage system and, as such, it can be readily understood and appreciated even by very conservative sewerage design engineers, especially when they realise that its hydraulic design is actually more rigorous than that used for conventional sewerage

Interdisciplinary Water and Sanitation Project in Burkina Faso

Interdisciplinary project on water and sanitation was performed in Burkina Faso from 2010 to 2015. The title of the project was “Development of sustainable water and sanitation systems in the African Sahel region”, and the project was supported by SATREPS (JST and JICA) and collaborated with International Institute of Water and Sanitation (2iE). The main purpose of the project was to develop and demonstrate the new system of water and sanitation based on the concept of “do not mix” and “do not collect” water and wastewater. In the project, we have proposed the following concept that the water and sanitation system is not a technical system, but it is characterized comprehensive system which includes functions for institutional design, finances and human resources development. The project proposed several element technologies for sanitation which includes composting toilet; gray water reclamation unit; urine recovery unit; and agricultural technologies for effective uses of compost and urine and salt management of soil. The project also proposed the business model for installation of the system. New water and sanitation system tried in Burkina Faso will be an adequate system not only for the developing countries, and the proposed system might be considered to indicate the future direction of water and sanitation system

Periurban sanitation: what's the problem?

To meet the WHO/UNICEF target of ‘Water & Sanitation for All by 2025’ some 4.4 billion people will have to be provided with improved sanitation during 2001−2025, and around half of these are/will be in ‘urban’ areas – but in reality we are talking about periurban areas. Given that most population growth over the next few decades will occur in ‘urban’ (again, really periurban) areas of developing countries, periurban sanitation will have to become much more important than it already is. Our current focus is on achieving the sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goals, but these efforts will have to be doubled if we are to meet the WHO/UNICEF 2025 sanitation target in periurban areas, and then maintained for the next quarter century as we seek to meet the sanitation needs of the additional two billion or so people expected in periurban areas by 2050. So the Big Question is: How can we provide affordable sanitation to these very large numbers of poor people in periurban areas in developing countries? The answer to this question depends in part on the population density: at low population densities on-site sanitation systems are normally feasible, but (and as we have known since the early 1980s), even if there is sufficient space for them, they may not necessarily be the cheapest option (and, because we are attempting to serve poor and very poor people, we have to consider cost); and, of course, at high population densities on-site systems become infeasible as there is no space for them. In addition to being affordable, the chosen sanitation system has to be both socially acceptable and institutionally feasible. Consider the typical periurban situation: a high population density, one too high to permit on-site sanitation systems. What are the ‘best’ solutions for sanitation? If affordable, the system of choice would normally be simplified sewerage (also known as ‘condominial’ sewerage). With this sanitation system we should remember that in Natal in northeast Brazil, where it was developed in the early 1980s, it became cheaper than on-site sanitation at the relatively low population density of ~160 persons per ha, there were no connection charges and the monthly charge for the service was only USD 1.50; and that in Chisty Nagar in Orangi, Karachi, Pakistan, where Brazilian-style simplified sewerage was first installed in Asia in the mid-1980s, the residents obtained their water (only ~27 litres per person per day) from public standpipes, thus demonstrating that a plentiful on-plot water supply is not a sine qua non for the system. Simplified/condominial sewerage is one of the components of the very successful ‘Slum networking’ programme in India, and it has also been used in small villages in northeast Brazil. It is socioculturally very acceptable as it appears to its users to be similar to conventional sewerage, so their sanitation system is the ‘same’ as that enjoyed by the rich. It is also institutionally acceptable simply because it is a sewerage system and, as such, it can be readily understood and appreciated even by very conservative sewerage design engineers, especially when they realise that its hydraulic design is actually more rigorous than that used for conventional sewerage

Sanitation Sustainability Index: A Pilot Approach to Develop a Community-Based Indicator for Evaluating Sustainability of Sanitation Systems

Evaluating the sustainability of sanitation systems is essential in achieving the sixth sustainable development goal. However, there are only limited number of available evaluation indexes, which are utilized to macroscopically determine a community's sanitation coverage. Consequently, an index is required, which can evaluate different sanitation options for a specific community. In this paper, the sanitation sustainability index (SSI) is suggested as an indicator for evaluating the sustainability of sanitation systems. The SSI has sub-indexes that consider the technical, social, and economic aspects of the sanitation system, and all the variables are dimensionless and heavily dependent on the current state of the community where the sanitation system is going to be implemented. The applicability of the SSI was demonstrated by evaluating the implementation of two onsite sanitation systems, including one septic tank system and one resource-oriented sanitation (ROS) system in South Korea. A sensitivity analysis defined the variables that have significant impact, and the statistical distribution of the SSI for both systems was forecasted. The results showed that for South Korea, which has a profound history of utilizing human waste as fertilizer, utilizing the resource-oriented sanitation system is more sustainable, although it has a lower social sub-index score compared to the septic tank system.ope

Sanitation Now: What is Good Practice and What is Poor Practice?

To meet the 2015 Millennium Development Goals sanitation target or the 2025 universal sanitation coverage target it is essential that it is properly understood where the available sanitation options are applicable. In high-density low-income urban areas conventional sewerage and ecological sanitation systems are inapplicable solely on grounds of cost. In these areas the options are simplified sewerage, low-cost combined sewerage and community-managed sanitation blocks. In medium-density urban areas on-site systems are also applicable (alternating twin-pit VIP latrines and pour-flush toilets, urine-diverting alternating twin-vault ventilated improved vault latrines, biogas toilets and ecological sanitation systems, all with greywater disposal or use). In medium- to low-density rural areas the options are the same as those in medium-density urban areas, with single-pit VIP latrines and pour-flush toilets, rather than alternating twin-pit systems. The level of water supply service (public or community-managed standpipes, yard taps, multiple-tap in-house supplies) also influences the choice of sanitation option

Wastewater Collection Performance on Communal Sanitation System in Cimahi Indonesia

In dense population cities, the effectiveness of the communal system in handling municipal domestic wastewater is important. This research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pipe dimensioning process and determine it as a wastewater collector to be served as a reactor through a tracer test. Thus, this work may give some inputs for a reliable design criteria for communal system in Indonesia. The reaserch area was at communal system on Tegal Kawung RT 05 RW 08. It served 37 household which was identified using built drawings and field checking. The number of communal septic tank user was 150 people who approximately use water of 134.33 L/person/day and more than 75% (107.46 L/persons/day )was discharged to the system. The tracer test was done between the control box with the distance of 27.94 m and diameter of 150 mm. Based on the mathematical model that was used, the diameter of the pipe should be 100 mm. The tracer test showed that the piping system is the Plug Flow Reactor but it is not yet effective, shown by the MDI value of 3.36