Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool with Health Risk Assessment: Case Study of a Peri-Urban Community...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Surinkul, Narong]On: 25 September 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 914993687]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713400879

Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool with Health Risk Assessment: Case Studyof a Peri-Urban Community in ThailandNarong Surinkul a; Thammarat Koottatep a

a School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang,Pathumthani, Thailand

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2009

To cite this Article Surinkul, Narong and Koottatep, Thammarat(2009)'Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool with Health RiskAssessment: Case Study of a Peri-Urban Community in Thailand',Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An InternationalJournal,15:5,1064 — 1077

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10807030903153469

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807030903153469

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713400879

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807030903153469

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 15: 1064–1077, 2009Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1080-7039 print / 1549-7860 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10807030903153469

Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool with Health RiskAssessment: Case Study of a Peri-Urban Communityin Thailand

Narong Surinkul and Thammarat KoottatepSchool of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Instituteof Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand

ABSTRACTThis article presents an application of Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and Quantita-

tive Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) as means for advanced sanitation planningin order to quantify domestic waste flows and to estimate microbial infectious risks.The main domestic waste flows include sewerage, greywater from households, efflu-ent of on-site sanitation systems, and illegal dumping of fecal sludge. These flowscould cause the contamination of E. coli in canals at the concentration range of9.0E+01 to 9.2E+04 MPN/100 ml. This study analyzed three scenarios of domesticwaste managements: (1) household greywater treatment, (2) fecal sludge treatment,and (3) sewerage treatment, resulting in substantial reduction of E. coli concentra-tions in those treated effluents. Subsequently, QMRA results could confirm whetherthe yearly infectious risks due to the uses of treated effluents were lower than theacceptable risk of 1.0E-04 (USEPA 1994). With the aforementioned conditions, thisresearch could demonstrate the potential as an advanced sanitation planning toolby integrating MFA and QMRA methods.

Key Words: E. coli, MFA, microbial infectious risk, QMRA, sanitation planning.

INTRODUCTION

Expansions on the urban or peri-urban periphery have rapidly grown. That den-sification accounts for growth of more than 4% in developing countries (WorldBank 1994). Much of the growth lies in the tendency of humans to exploit naturalresources with little or no regard to the waste that is produced, causing adverseeffects on the environment as well as threatening public health. Most of the global

Received 22 October 2008; revised manuscript accepted 4 February 2009.Address correspondence to Narong Surinkul, School of Environment, Resources and De-velopment, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120,Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]

1064

Downloaded By: [Surinkul, Narong] At: 02:06 25 September 2009

Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool

burden of diarrhea disease occurs in developing countries, and it is estimated thatapproximately 90% of the diarrhea disease burden is related to the environmentalfactors of poor sanitation and lack of access to clean water and safe food (WHO1997). The total number of diarrhea episodes in each year could be as high as 4,000million cases around the world (WHO 1997).

For instance, the number of diarrhea episodes in Klong Luang municipality(a peri-urban community of Bangkok City), Pathumthani province, Thailand, wasapproximately 2.0E+03 cases per 1.0E+05 population per year (Klong Luang Mu-nicipality 2005), relatively higher than the overall rate of acute diarrhea of Thailand(1.5E+03 cases per 1.0E+05 population per year (MOPH 2007)). The relativelyhigh prevalence could be due to the inadequate sanitation systems and improperwater use practices. It is also postulated that the present domestic waste manage-ment methods are not sufficient to protect human health from pathogens alongtransmission routes. Considering financial and technical limitations in most devel-oping countries, it is essential to effectively plan coping strategies with interventionsto deal with such environmental sanitation issues.

Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment(QMRA) are the methods that can be applied for assessing domestic waste flowsand health risk due to excreta-related pathogen, respectively. Westrell et al. (2000)has applied MFA to analyze the energy use for the most significant drinking wa-ter system and to use QMRA to assess the microbial risks of each drinking watersystem.

MFA is a systematic assessment of flow and stocks of material (material balance)within a defined system in space and time. It describes the flows of resources usedand transformed through a single process or via a combination of various processes(Baccini and Brunner 1991). Many previous studies used MFA for environmentalsanitation planning for water and wastewater flows, waste flows, and nutrients flows(Belevi 2002; Montangero et al. 2004). In Thailand, MFA was used to analyze flowsof domestic solid waste and wastewater management in the municipality of Pak Kret(Sinsupan et al. 2005).

QMRA is a method to predict the consequences of potential or actual exposureto infectious microorganisms (Haas et al. 1999). Possible risk by E. coli and probablerisk by specific pathogens have been used to report the health risk by activities in theenvironment (Steyn et al. 2004). Several previous researchers have studied microbialhealth risks with related activities: for example, general health risks by E. coli dueto high fecal contamination in urban discharges to water sources (Jagals et al. 1995;Griesel and Jagals 2002); ecological risk assessment for source water protection re-lated to drinking water quality endpoints (Serveiss and Ohlson 2007); and possibleinfectious risk of E. coli in drinking water in Khon Kaen, Thailand (Watanabe et al.2006).

The purposes of this study are to apply MFA and QMRA methods to assessdomestic waste flows of a peri-urban area in Klong Luang municipality, Thai-land, and to anticipate the possible health risks by E. coli contamination, theresults of which should contribute to appropriate environmental sanitationplanning.

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 15, No. 5, 2009 1065


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230037734_Quantitative_Microbial_Risk_Assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-97776b2e-1a10-46f5-8339-7909116d6f27&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzAwODI4NztBUzoxMDE0NzE1MDA2MzYxNjRAMTQwMTIwNDA5OTUwMA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248944809_Using_Ecological_Risk_Assessment_Principles_in_a_Source_Water_Protection_Assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-97776b2e-1a10-46f5-8339-7909116d6f27&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzAwODI4NztBUzoxMDE0NzE1MDA2MzYxNjRAMTQwMTIwNDA5OTUwMA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237835353_Material_flow_analysis_as_a_tool_for_environmental_sanitation_planning_in_Viet_Tri_Vietnam?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-97776b2e-1a10-46f5-8339-7909116d6f27&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzAwODI4NztBUzoxMDE0NzE1MDA2MzYxNjRAMTQwMTIwNDA5OTUwMA==

N. Surinkul and T. Koottatep

METHODOLOGY

Reviews

Background information of Klong Luang municipality was gathered with the em-phasis on environmental, sanitation and waste management practices, agriculture,and irrigation systems. Secondary data were obtained or calculated from the relevantscientific publications, official statistics, and documents.

Questionnaires and Interviews

Questionnaires and in-depth interviews were undertaken by randomly selecting100 out of 10,800 households. The questions focused on management practicesof domestic wastes of each household and related activities dealing with domesticwastes or canal water. Amount of contacts and frequency of accidental ingestion ofthe contaminated sources were determined by in-depth interviews of members ofthose selected households for inputs to the model.

Sampling and Parameter Analysis

Samples from each potential pathogen-contaminated sources and pathways suchas sewerage, fecal sludge, food waste, and surface water were randomly taken bygrab sampling. Triplicate samples from four locations were collected every monthduring year 2006 to present data from this area and cover the seasonal effects. E.coli concentrations were analyzed by the MPN technique with EC-mug medium asdescribed in Standard Methods (APHA-AWWA-WPCF 2005).

MFA and QMRA

MFA for water and domestic waste flows within the municipal boundary in thisstudy were determined according to four steps (Brunner and Rechberger 2004):(1) system analysis that comprises processes, waste flows, and system boundary; (2)measurement of mass flows in which the information was obtained from literature re-view (scientific publications, official statistics, and documents.), field measurement(sampling and laboratory analysis), field survey (questionnaires and interviews); (3)calculation of mass balance over the processes; and (4) schematic presentation ofresults and scenarios.

QMRA was undertaken in four steps: hazard identification, dose–response anal-ysis, exposure assessment, and risk characterization (Haas et al. 1999). In this study,E. coli was selected as the pathogenic indicator because it is referred in several ef-fluent standards and/or guidelines as an excreta-contaminated indicator (WHO1989). Exposure assessments focused on the management practices of the proposedmeasures in scenarios analysis. Information on volume and frequency of ingestionswas derived from literature reviews, questionnaires, and in-depth interviews. Thedose–response model of E. coli used the Beta-Poisson model, as reported by Haaset al. (1999).

1066 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 15, No. 5, 2009


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230037734_Quantitative_Microbial_Risk_Assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-97776b2e-1a10-46f5-8339-7909116d6f27&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzAwODI4NztBUzoxMDE0NzE1MDA2MzYxNjRAMTQwMTIwNDA5OTUwMA==


Figure 1. Klong Luang municipality and land uses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Study Area

Klong Luang municipality is a peri-urban community in Thailand located inPathumthani province about 20-km to the north of Bangkok City. Klong Luang mu-nicipality has 18 villages with a total population of approximately 60,000 in the totalarea of 43 km2 (Klong Luang Municipality 2005). This municipality has four maincanals, flowing from the upstream municipality. Canals no. 1 and 2 serve as drainagecanals, in which households or communities normally discharge their wastewaters.The other two canals, no. 8 and 9, are generally used for irrigation, which do notallow people to discharge their wastewaters, except runoff from agricultural areas.Urban areas cover about 36% of the total area, which mostly are in the western partof canal no. 1, while the agricultural areas are mostly in the eastern part of canalno.1, as shown in Figure 1.

Water and Domestic Waste Flows in the Klong Luang Municipal Area

Results from the questionnaires and field observations revealed that typical on-site sanitation systems are connected with soakage pits or sewer systems, as shown inFigure 2. Black water is separated from greywater and treated by on-site sanitationsystems: cesspools (73%) and septic tanks (27%). Effluent from the on-site sanitationsystems is discharged to the sewer at a rate of only 29%, whereas 71% of the effluent




Figure 2. Typical on-site sanitation system in Thailand (adapted from AIT (2003)).

seeps into soil. Approximately 33% of greywater is discharged to the sewer system,but the remaining 67% is spread onto land. However, only 10% of sewerage fromthe sewer system is treated at small centralized wastewater treatment systems; the restis directly discharged into nearby canals. The municipality has no sanitary landfillfor disposal of solid wastes, which are generally transferred to a landfill outside itsboundary.

System Analysis

MFA in this study focused on mass flow of water, sewerage, fecal sludge, andsolid wastes in the municipal boundary. Shown in Figure 3 are the MFA results ofexisting mass flows of sewerage to canals, greywater from household to soil, grey-water from household to surface water, and effluent of on-site systems to soil, atthe rates of 1.22E+06, 2.38E+06, 0.26E+06, and 0.13E+06 m3/year, respectively. Itwas also found that only sewerage of 0.13E+06 m3/year is being treated before dis-charge into the environment, whereas the runoff from agricultural areas of 7.25+06m3/year is discharged into the canals. Fecal sludge from on-site sanitation systemsof 0.01E+06 m3/year is handled by municipality, but the remaining fecal sludgeof 0.01E+06 m3/year is managed by private sectors, which illegally dump it ontoabandoned land. Based on the results obtained from MFA, the sewerage flow fromsewer to canals is a major flow causing the water quality deterioration in the mu-nicipality. Greywater and effluent of the on-site sanitation systems are not collectedby sewer systems, but are being disposed on land or in natural soil trenches. Al-though soil is an effective barrier for fecal coliform contamination, described aslower than 1 CFU/100 ml (Alhajjar et al. 1988), the runoff from the contaminatedsoil could bring pathogens into the canal (generally considered as non-point sourcepollution).

Scenarios Analysis

Based on system analysis, the mitigation interventions for sanitation systems suchas household greywater treatment, fecal sludge treatment, and sewerage treatmentare proposed at their disposal points as shown in Figure 4.

Scenario 1: Implementation of household greywater treatment system

The implementation of household greywater treatment includes collection andtreatment at household level. If households could install greywater treatment systems,



Figu

re3.

Mas

sfl

ows

ofth

eex

isti

ng

dom

esti

cw

aste

sin

the

Klo

ng

Lua

ng

mun

icip

alit

y.

1069


Figu

re4.

Mas

sfl

ows

ofdo

mes

tic

was

tes

afte

rth

esc

enar

ios

appr

oach

esin

the

Klo

ng

Lua

ng

mun

icip

alit

y.

1070



a total of treated greywater of 2.64E+06 m3/year will be further reused in greenareas or household gardens.

Scenario 2: Implementation of fecal sludge treatment system

Scenario 2 considers a new fecal sludge treatment that is proposed to handle theremaining fecal sludge in this area. After that, a total of fecal sludge effluents of1.99E+04 m3/year will be reused as liquid fertilizer on farmlands.

Scenario 3: Implementation of sewerage treatment system

Installations of centralized or decentralized sewerage treatment plants are pro-posed in Scenario 3 and to reuse the effluent on farmland, which could reduce3.05E+05 and 9.15E+05 m3/year of sewerage discharge if 25% and 75% of sewer-age are treated, respectively.

Based on 12 samples in the year 2006 (Table 1), E. coli concentrations in sewerage,greywater from households, and fecal sludge could range from 2.2E+04 to 1.9E+08,2.2E+02 to 5.0E+04, 1.2E+06 to 3.5E+09 MPN/100 ml, respectively. In Scenarios 1,2, and 3; the possible reduction of E. coli at 3, 6, and 4-log were applied for householdgreywater treatment, fecal sludge treatment, and sewerage treatment, respectively.E. coli concentration in treated greywater ranged from 2.2E-01 to 5.0E+01 MPN/100ml while fecal sludge effluent was in the range of 1.2E+00 to 3.5E+03 MPN/100 ml.Addition of 4-log reduction of E. coli by sewerage treatment was applied together withScenarios 1 and 2 at 25 and 75% of sewerage collection and treatment in Scenarios3.1 and 3.2, but maximum E. coli concentrations in canal water still remained atthe same magnitude of 1.0E+04 MPN/100 ml. This is probably due to the factthat the amount of treated effluents is relatively small as compared to the amountof domestic wastes discharged into the canal. However, if the die-off rate is takeninto accounted, the E. coli concentrations in canals will be gradually decreased withincreasing of retention time on farmland.

Microbial Infectious Risks Due to Water and Wastewater Reuse Practices

Among the proposed scenarios (Figure 4), infectious risks in water and wastewaterreuse practices could range from minimum to maximum values depending on theamount of exposure doses, for which associated parameters and risk models areshown in Table 2.

Based on QMRA analysis, it is estimated that the possible risks posed by reuseof greywater in gardens were between 5.59E-06 to 1.50E-03 and 8.02E-05 to 1.81E-02, which could be reduced to 6.59E-11 to 1.50E-06 and 8.52E-10 to 1.82E-05, ifgreywater is properly treated (Scenario 1) at the given exposures (minimum andmaximum exposures), respectively (Figure 5). For Scenario 2, the possible risksposed by the reuse of fecal sludge on farmland were between 5.97E-03 to 1.00E+00and 1.13E-01 to 1.00E+00. After proper treatment, it could be reduced to 5.99E-09to 1.75E-05 and 1.2E-07 to 3.5E-04 at the given exposures, respectively (Figure 6).It is apparent that the possible risks in Scenarios 1 and 2 were relatively lower thanthe acceptable risk of 1.0E-04, as recommended by the USEPA (1994).

In Scenario 3, the possible risks from the reuse of untreated sewerage ranged from6.59E-04 to 1.00E+00 and 7.99E-03 to 1.00E+00 at the given exposures, respectively.



Tab

le1.

E.co

lico

nce

ntr

atio

ns

afte

rsc

enar

ios.

E.co

lico

nce

ntr

atio

nTr

eatm

ents

and

Cal

cula

ted

E.co

liC

alcu

late

dE.

coli

Scen

ario

sin

dom

esti

cw

aste

redu

ctio

nco

nce

ntr

atio

ns

inef

flue

nts

con

cen

trat

ion

s∗in

can

al

1)10

0%of

grey

wat

ertr

eatm

ent(

Scen

ario

1)2.

2E+

02–5

.0E

+04

(gre

ywat

er)

3-lo

gby

was

test

abili

zati

onpo

nds

and

rock

filt

era

2.2E

-01–

5.0E

+01

9.0E

+01

–9.0

E+

04

2)10

0%of

feca

lslu

dge

trea

tmen

t(Sc

enar

io2)

1.2E

+06

–3.5

E+

09(f

ecal

slud

ge)

6-lo

gby

anae

robi

cta

nk

for

1m

onth

hol

din

gti

meb

1.2E

+00

–3.

5E+

039.

0E+

01–8

.6E

+04

3)25

%of

sew

erag

eco

llect

ion

and

trea

tmen

t(S

cen

ario

3.1)

+Sc

enar

io1

and

2

2.2E

+04

–1.9

E+

08(s

ewer

age)

4-lo

gby

was

test

abili

zati

onpo

ndb

2.2E

+00

–1.

9E+

049.

0E+

01–6

.5E

+04

4)75

%of

sew

erag

eco

llect

ion

and

trea

tmen

t(S

cen

ario

3.2)

+Sc

enar

io1

and

2

2.2E

+04

–1.9

E+

08(s

ewer

age)

4-lo

gby

was

test

abili

zati

onpo

ndb

2.2E

+00

–1.

9E+

049.

0E+

01–2

.2E

+04

∗ Con

cen

trat

ion

sw

ere

calc

ulat

edfr

omth

edi

luti

oneq

uati

on:

Ct=

(C1V

1+C

2V2+

...+C

nV

n)

/(V

1+V

2+..

.+V

n).

Die

-off

rate

inca

nal

was

not

con

side

red

and

back

grou

nd

con

cen

trat

ion

ofE.

coli

was

10M

PN/1

00m

loft

otal

flow

7.3E

+06

m3/y

ear.

Exi

stin

gE.

coli

con

cen

trat

ion

sin

can

alw

ere

inra

nge

of9.

00E

+01

to9.

20E

+04

MPN

/100

ml.

a Mar

aan

dJo

hn

son

(200

7);b

WH

O(2

006)

.

1072



Table 2. Exposure doses parameters in proposed scenarios.

Volume of ingestion Frequency/ PopulationPractice or contacts year group

1. Watering of greywater andtreated greywater in garden

1–10 ml/timea 300–365 times (frominterviews)

Household

2. Irrigation of fecal sludgeand fecal sludge effluent onfarmland as liquid fertilizer


Farmer

3. Irrigation of sewerage andtreated sewerage onfarmland


Farmer

4. Irrigation canal water onfarmland


Farmer

Remark: Risks are calculated from Pi = 1-{1+d(2(1/α) – 1)/N50}−α and Pn = 1–(1-Pi)n

Where: Pi = Probability of infection risk, Pn = Yearly risk, d = Dose of exposure, α =0.1778, N50 = 8.6E + 07 for E. coli (Haas and Eisenberg 2001).aSteyn et al. (2004).

Possible risks from the treated sewerage (Scenario 3) could be reduced to 6.59E-08to 5.69E-04 and 8.02E-07 to 6.90E-03 at designed exposures, respectively (Figure 7).For the irrigation of canal water on farmlands, the possible risks after Scenario 3.2could be reduced from ranges of 2.70E-06 to 2.75E-03, to 2.70E-06 to 6.59E-04 andfrom ranges of 3.28E-05 to 3.23E-02, to 3.28E-05 to 7.99E-03 at the given exposures,respectively (Figure 8). The implementation of Scenario 3.2 with 75% of seweragecollection and treatment could reduce 70% of the highest risk, but still be higher

Figure 5. Possible infectious risks by E. coli due to reuse of treated greywater(Scenario 1, Practice 1).




Figure 6. Possible infectious risks by E. coli due to reuse of fecal sludge effluent byirrigation on farmland (Scenario 2, Practice 2).

than the acceptable risk, which did not differ from the results from Scenario 3.1with 25% of sewerage collection and treatment.

The aforementioned results of a case study of the Klong Laung municipality reaf-firm that it is essential for environmental sanitation planning to determine adverseimpacts on water quality together with risks on public health, in order to appro-priately select mitigation interventions such as fecal sludge treatment, greywater

Figure 7. Possible infectious risks by E. coli due to reuse of treated sewerage(Scenario 3, Practice 3).




Figure 8. Possible infectious risks by E. coli due to use of canal water (Scenario 3,Practice 4).

management/reuse, and sewerage systems. This study could also help urban plan-ners, policy-makers, and relevant agencies to understand the linkage of pathogenconcentration, health risk at each exposure point, and barriers or interventions. Ef-fective environmental sanitation planning would have more points of view when thesocioeconomic and stakeholder analysis are done. However, they are not includedin this part.

Even though there is a limitation in using E. coli as an indicator that is likelyunable to obtain high reliability or result in over-estimation in health risk assessment(Ottoson and Strenstrom 2003), it illustrates the benefits in comparisons betweenthe existing conditions and the proposed mitigation interventions. Due mainly to anumber of parameters and assumptions in health risk estimation, it would requiredetermination of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of model parameters includingmicrobial die-off rates. In addition, some model parameters should be validatedwith the probable health risks due to specific disease-causing pathogens such asSalmonella and Shigella.

CONCLUSIONS

The Klong Luang municipal area is a typical peri-urban setting in developingcountries, having insufficient environmental sanitation services. Most municipalwastes and wastewaters are discharged into the environment, especially soil andwater bodies, with minimal treatment. Although the problems incurred in the KlongLuang municipality are not as serious as urban centers of several big cities, it isprecautionary to warrant timely action to avert the continual deterioration of theenvironmental quality and effects to public health.




Flows of the domestic wastes quantified by MFA indicated that sewerage fromsewers is the major cause of fecal pollution in canals. If such domestic wastes interms of greywater of 2.64E+06 m3/year, fecal sludge of 1.99E+04 m3/year, sew-erage of 3.05E+05 m3/year, and sewerage of 9.15E+05 m3/year could be treatedas described in Scenarios 1, 2, 3.1, and 3.2, with reuse schemes, it would likelyresult in health risk reduction to an acceptable level. Even though three such mit-igation interventions in these scenarios’ analyses could not offer significant reduc-tion of E. coli concentrations in canals, the highest risks due to the use of canalwater for irrigation purposes could be substantially reduced due to sewerage col-lection and treatment at a coverage of 75%. An example of integrated MFA andQMRA applications in this study could be useful in effective environmental sanita-tion planning for both reduction of pollution loads and minimizing health risks.Expectedly, the information given by this integrated planning tool with appropri-ate socioeconomic analysis could determine policy measures on the environmentalsanitation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was conducted within the National Centre of Competence in Research(NCCR) North-South program, which is financially supported by the Swiss NationalScience Foundation (SNSF) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation(SDC).

REFERENCES

AIT (Asian Institute of Technology). 2003. Septage Treatment: Phase 4 Report, AIT-SANDECJoint-research project. Pathumthani, Thailand

Alhajjar BJ, Stramer SL, Cliver DO, et al. 1988. Transport modeling of biological tracers fromseptic systems. Water Res 22:907–15

APHA-AWWA-WPCF (American Public Health Association). 2005. Standard Method for theExamination of Water and Wastewater, 21st edit. American Public Health Association,Washington, DC, USA

Baccini P and Brunner PF. 1991. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. Swiss Federal Instituteof Technology Zurich (ETH). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany

Belevi H. 2002. Material Flow Analysis as a strategic planning tool for regional wastewa-ter and solid waste management. Proceedings of the workshop “Globale Zukunft: Kreis-laufwirtschaftskonzepte im kommunalen Abwasser-und Fakalienmanagement.” Munich,Germany

Brunner PH and Rechberger H. 2004. Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis: AdvanceMethods in Resource and Waste Management, pp 35–159. Lewis Publishers, New York, NY,USA

Griesel M and Jagals P. 2002. Faecal indicators in the Renorster Spruit System of the Modder-Riet River catchments and implications for human users of the water. Water SA 28(2):227–34

Haas CN and Eisenberg JNS. 2001. Risk assessment. In: Fewtrell L and Bartram J (eds), WaterQuality: Guidelines, Standards and Health, Assessment of Risk and Risk Management for




Water-Related Infectious Disease. World Health Organization in series. IWA Publishing,London, UK

Haas CN, Rose JB, and Gerba CP. 1999. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. John Wileyand Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA

Jagals P, Grabow WOK, and De Villiers JC. 1995. Evaluation of indicators for assessment ofhuman and animal faecal pollution of surface runoff. Water Sci Technol 24(5–6):235–41

Klong Luang Municipality. 2005. Development Plan Report: Klong Luang Municipality. KlongLuang, Thailand

Mara DD and Johnson ML. 2007. Waste stabilization ponds and rock filters: Solution for smallcommunities, Water Sci Technol 55(7):103–7

Montangero A, Nguyen TKT, and Belevi H. 2004. Material flow analysis as a tool for en-vironmental sanitation planning in Viet Tri, Vietnam. In: Godfrey S (ed), Proceedingsof the 30th WEDC International Conference, People-centered Approaches to Water andEnvironmental Sanitation. Vientiane, Lao PDR, Oct., 2004. Loughborough University, UK

MOPH (Ministry of Public Health). 2007. Annual Epidemiological Surveillance Report. Non-thaburi, Thailand

Ottoson J and Stenstrom TA. 2003. Faecal contamination of greywater and associated micro-bial risks. Water Res 37:645–55

Serveiss VB and Ohlson DW. 2007. Using ecological risk assessment principals in a sourcewater protection assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 13(2):402–17

Sinsupan T, Koottatepp T, and Montangero A. 2005. Material flux analysis for planningof domestic solid waste and wastewater in Pak Kret municipality. In: Panntumsinchai Pand Chawakitchareon P (eds), Proceedings of 4th National Environmental Conference,Pattaya, Thailand, Jan 19–21, 2005. Environmental Engineering Association of Thailand(EEAT), Thailand

Steyn M, Jagals P, and Genthe B. 2004. Assessment of microbial infection risks posed byingestion of water during domestic water use and full-contact recreation in a mid-southernAfrican Region. Water Sci Technol 50(1):301–8

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. National Primary Drinking Water Reg-ulations: Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Requirements. Proposed rule. Washington,DC, USA

Watanabe T, Miura T, Omura T, et al. 2006. Risk evaluation of infectious diseases associated withdrinking water based on water supply system. Proceedings of International Conference onMekong Research for the People of the Mekong, Oct 18–21, 2006, Chiang Rai, Thailand

Westrell T, Bergstedt O, Heinicke G, et al. 2000. A systems analysis comparing drinkingwater systems-central physical-chemical treatment and local membrane filtration. WaterSci Technol, Water Supp 2(2):11–8

WHO (World Health Organization). 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater inAgriculture and Aquaculture. Technical Report Series No 776. Geneva, Switzerland

WHO. 1997. Health and Environment in Sustainable Development: Five Years after the EarthSummit. Geneva, Switzerland

WHO. 2006. Guideline for the Safe Uses of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater, Volume 4:Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture. Geneva, Switzerland

World Bank. 1994. Infrastructure for Development. World Development Report. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK



Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool with Health Risk Assessment: Case Study of a Peri-Urban Community...

Documents

Transcript of Advanced Sanitation Planning Tool with Health Risk Assessment: Case Study of a Peri-Urban Community...