PEDAL MODIFICATION ON GULPER PUMP TECHNOLOGY

FOR PIT LATRINE EMPTYING IN PERI URBAN MZUZU

(MALAWI)

MSc (Sanitation) Thesis

WILLY CHIPETA (BSc)

MZUZU UNIVERSITY

August 2016
PEDAL MODIFICATION ON GULPER PUMP TECHNOLOGY FOR
PIT LATRINE EMPTYING IN PERI URBAN MZUZU (MALAWI)

WILLY CHIPETA (BSc)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SANITATION

MZUZU UNIVERSITY

AUGUST 2016

II
 DECLARATION

I, Willy Chimwemwe Chipeta, declare that this thesis is a result of my own original effort
and work, and that to the best of my knowledge, the findings have never been previously
presented to Mzuzu University or elsewhere for the award of any academic qualification.
Where assistance was sought, it has been accordingly acknowledged. All the citations and
quotations are distinguished and identified by reference.

Candidates signature Date

Willy Chipeta

III
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

We, the undersigned, certify that this thesis is a result of the authors own work, and that
to the best of our knowledge, it has not been submitted for any other academic
qualification within Mzuzu University or elsewhere. The thesis is acceptable in form and
content, and that satisfactory knowledge of the field covered by the thesis was
demonstrated by the candidate through an oral examination held on 10th June 2016.

Major Supervisor: Dr. Rochelle Holm

Signature: .............................................................................
Date: ...............................................................................

Supervisor: Dr. John Kamanula

Signature: ................................................................................
Date: ............................................................................................

Supervisor: Mr. Eddie Mtonga

Signature: ................................................................................
Date: ............................................................................................

IV
 DEDICATION

Firstly, praise be to God the Almighty for granting the opportunity to pursue the Masters
of Science in Sanitation program at Mzuzu University. My heartfelt gratitude to my wife
Sarah, son Bill, parents, siblings and friends for their love and support during my studies
and always.

My gratitude to supervisors Dr. Rochelle Holm, Mr. Eddie Mtonga and Dr. John
Kamanula for their critical review and guidance through the thesis process.

Special thanks to Jim McGill for supporting the identification of welders and connecting
me with Ashley Taylor of Virginia Tech in the United States of America.

The above step, enabled collaboration with Dr. Kevin Kochersberger (Faculty Advisor),
Austin Floeter (Team Facilitator), Brett Rush, Grant Baumgardner, Saud Alfouzan, Cody
Reese and Daniel Miller in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Virginia Tech who
together provided a parallel review of the design analysis process for the pedal powered
Gulper pump modification.

Furthermore, gratitude goes to Dr. Francis de Los Reyes and Tate Rogers of North
Carolina State University for sharing ideas on the development of pit latrine emptying
technologies.

Additionally, I sincerely thank Mr. Moffat Mphepo and Baxter Chirombo for helping in
the schematic diagrams of the pit emptying technology development phases.

I further extend my gratitude to Mr. Joshua Mchenga who reviewed the engineering
design conceptual phase for pedal modification of Gulper pump technology.

Finally, thanks to Chrissy Zimba for assisting in the formatting of the document for
submission.

To all the above, I dedicate this Thesis.

V
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by Research Project KSA11:K5/2296/11 awarded to Mzuzu

University Centre of Excellence in Water and Sanitation focusing on Solutions for pit
emptying and subsequent sludge management in low income urban settlements in
Malawi with support from the Water Research Commission of South Africa.

VI
 ABSTRACT

In the informal settlements within Mzuzu city, northern Malawi, pit latrines are the most
common affordable onsite sanitation facilities. However, the lack of effective
technological options poses challenges when the latrines are eventually filled to capacity.
Vacuum tankers currently dominate the market but focus on emptying septic tanks in the
more easily accessible formal areas, rather than servicing the pit latrines common in
unplanned areas. Alternative emptying technologies, such as the Gulper pump and the
Diaphragm pump, have had limited success in filling the technological gap. Hence, the
households in the informal settlements within Mzuzu rely primarily on manual pit
emptying (i.e., shoveling by hand) or digging a new pit latrine. These practices have
associated health risks and are limited by space constraints. This research focused on
filling the technological gap through the design, development and testing of a pedal
powered modified Gulper pump using locally available materials and fabrication. A
modified pedal powered Gulper technology was developed and demonstrated to be
capable of lifting fecal sludge from a depth of 1.5 m with a mean flow rate of 0.00058 m3
per second. If the trash content was low, a typical pit latrine with a volume of 1 to 4 m3
could be emptied within 1 to 2 hours. Based on the findings, Phase IV, the pedal powered
Gulper modification is a potential emptying technology for pit latrines in unplanned areas
of Mzuzu. However, the developed pedal powered Gulper is not yet as optimized as other
globally available pit latrine emptying technology options. Hence further modifications
are recommended based on current design limitations.

VII
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... VI
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... X
FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................ XI
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... XII
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background to the study ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Urban sanitation challenge ...................................................................................... 2
1.3 Problem statement ................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Main objective ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4.1 Specific objectives ..........................................................................................4
1.5 Research questions .................................................................................................. 4
1.6 Justification of the study ......................................................................................... 4
1.7 Limitations of the study .......................................................................................... 4
1.8 Scope of the research study..................................................................................... 5
1.9 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 8
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Overview of fecal sludge management ................................................................... 8
2.3 Importance of pit emptying technologies ............................................................... 9
2.4 Policy and institutional framework on pit emptying............................................. 10
2.5 Onsite sanitation facilities in Malawi ................................................................... 11
2.6 Pit latrine sludge characteristics and accumulation rates ...................................... 12
2.7 Pit Emptying technologies: pros and cons ............................................................ 15
2.7.1 Manual pit emptying ..................................................................................15
2.7.2 Semi-mechanized pit emptying technologies .............................................18
2.7.3 Mechanized technologies ...........................................................................25
2.8 Technological gap analysis and theoretical framework .................................................32
CHAPTER THREE. MATERIALS AND METHODS............................................................... 42
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 42
3.2 Study location ....................................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Research study location ..............................................................................42

VIII
 3.3 Research design .................................................................................................... 43
3.4 Research study sampling method and sample size ............................................... 44
3.5 Research study inclusion and exclusion criteria ................................................... 44
3.6 Research materials ................................................................................................ 45
3.7 Research data collection instruments .................................................................... 47
3.7.1 Secondary data ...........................................................................................47
3.7.2 Primary quantitative data ...........................................................................47
3.8 Research data management and analysis methods................................................ 49
3.9 Research ethical considerations ............................................................................ 49
3.10 Research dissemination strategy for study findings.............................................. 49
CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 51
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Conceptual design ................................................................................................. 51
4.3 Design and development phases ........................................................................... 52
4.4 Material list for technology development phases ................................................. 52
4.5 Design schematic diagrams of .............................................................................. 56
4.6 Pros and cons of developed pit emptying technology phases ............................... 58
4.7 Overview of testing of developed pit emptying technology ................................. 59
CHAPTER FIVE. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 64
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 64
5.2 Treadle Pump Modification .................................................................................. 64
5.2.1 Phase 1........................................................................................................64
5.2.2 Phase II .......................................................................................................65
5.2.3 Phase III......................................................................................................66
5.2.4 Phase IV .....................................................................................................67
5.3 Testing of pit emptying Technology ..................................................................... 67
CHAPTER SIX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 69
6.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 69
6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 69
6.3 Areas of further research ....................................................................................... 70
References ..................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 78

IX
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Faecal production rates .........................................................................13

Table 3.1: Research materials ................................................................................46
Table 4.1: Phase I material list ...............................................................................53
Table 4.2: Phase II materials list ...........................................................................54
Table 4.3: Phase III material list ...........................................................................55
Table 4.4: Phase IV material list ...........................................................................55
Table 4.5: Pros and cons of technology development phases ...............................58
Table 4.6: Dimensions of 5 successfully emptied pit latrines ...............................59
Table 4.7: Extraction time for 5 successfully emptied pit latrines ........................61

X
 FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1.1: Map of Malawi .....................................................................................2

Figure 1.2: Urban sanitation coverage for Malawi ..................................................2
Figure 1.3: Schematic arrangement of conceptual framework ................................7
Figure 2.1: Basic latrine facility and inside view of drop hole ..............................12
Figure 2.2: Rags removed from pit latrines in Area 1B .........................................13
Figure 2.3: Theoretical model of layers in a pit latrine..........................................14
Figure 2.4: A manual worker at work ...................................................................16
Figure 2.5: The MAPET system ............................................................................18
Figure 2.6: Gulper worker in action and sludge container ....................................20
Figure 2.7: Rammer technology ............................................................................22
Figure 2.8: Peddler model of the Rammer .............................................................22
Figure 2.9: The Nibbler..........................................................................................23
Figure 2.10: Diaphragm pump in Bangladesh ......................................................24
Figure 2.11: The people powered poop pump (P-Quad) .......................................25
Figure 2.12: A vacuum tanker in Accra, Ghana ....................................................26
Figure 2.13: The Dung Beetle ................................................................................27
Figure 2.14: Pressure washer and Diaphragm sludge pump ..................................28
Figure 2.15: Augur CAD model, mechanized Auger and trash in VIPs ...............29
Figure 2.16: Removal of non faecal material and Excerevator .............................30
Figure 2.17: The ROM 2 ........................................................................................31
Figure 2.18: The Gulper operation.........................................................................34
Figure 3.1: Overview of Mzuzu City and Aerial view of Area 1B.......................43
Figure 3.2: Inclusion and exclusion criteria of pit latrines ....................................45
Figure 3.3: Design and development process of pit emptying technology ...........47
Figure 4.1: Diagram of the modified treadle pump for pit emptying ....................51
Figure 4.2: Technology development phases.........................................................52
Figure 4.3: Design schematic of Phase I ................................................................56
Figure 4.4: Design schematic of Phase II .............................................................56
Figure 4.5: Design schematic of Phase III .............................................................57
Figure 4.6: Design schematic of Phase IV .............................................................57
Figure 4.7: Trash volume in sampled pit latrines .................................................60
Figure 4.8: Volume of water used for fluidization ...............................................62
Figure 4.9: Flow rates of 5 pit latrines emptied in Area 1B ..................................63

XI
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
FS Faecal sludge

FSM Faecal sludge management

MAPET Manual pit emptying technology

MDG Millennium development goals

MDHP Manual emptying hand pump

NGO Non-governmental organization

NSO National statistical office

OSS On site sanitation system

SDG Sustainable development goals

SSA Sub Saharan Africa

UN United Nations

UN-Habitat United Nations human settlements programme

UNICEF United Nations children fund

USD United States Dollar

VIP Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine

WATSAN Water and sanitation

WHO World health organization

WSP Water sanitation program

XII
 CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Onsite sanitation facilities are used for excreta disposal in many developing countries
globally. About 2.7 billion people use an onsite sanitation facility, with forecasted usage
by 2030 estimated to be at 5 billion people (Strande, 2014). The use of such facilities
enables the control of faecal pathogens towards reduced morbidity and mortality
especially amongst children under-five.

Many developing countries have adopted onsite sanitation facilities such as pit latrines,
Ventilated Improved pit latrines (VIP), septic tanks, pour flash and composting toilets as
an affordable means towards meeting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)
sanitation target (Boot, 2007). The MDG Goal 7: target 10 was to halve by 2015, the
proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation
(UN, 2010).

In 2015, there were still 2.4 billion people lacking access to improved sanitation facilities
(WHO and UNICEF, 2015), and the global sanitation MDG target was not met. Renewed
focus is now on the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) priorities. The
SDG Goal 6 seeks to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all (UN, 2015).

Reliance on onsite sanitation facilities remains essential to achieving the SDGs for many
developing countries. However, the management of onsite sanitation facilities, such as pit
latrines, when they fill poses challenges to many developing countries especially in
rapidly growing urban settlements.

1
1.2 Urban sanitation challenge

The urban population has surpassed the ability of service providers to provide adequate
faecal sludge management services in cities within developing countries. The global
urban population has grown by 73 percent, while the rural population has grown by 11
percent since 1990 (WHO and UNICEF, 2015). Many households do not have space to
dig a new latrine when it fills up and unable to safely abandon due to high density living
conditions in many urban informal settlements (Radford and Fenner, 2013). Malawi being
a developing country in Sub Saharan Africa is not exempted.

Malawi is a landlocked country with Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique as neighboring

countries (Figure, 1.1). Population density in Malawi was about 139 persons per km2 in
2008 and is projected by 2016 the population will be at 16.3 million with 15.3 percent of
the population residing in urban areas (Malawi Government, Ministry of Health, 2011).
Currently, urban sanitation coverage for Malawi is at 47 percent (WHO and UNICEF,
2015) which is higher than Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique (Figure, 1.2).

Comparative analysis of
Improved Urban Access
Coverages
50 47
41
40
32 32
30

20

10

0
Urban Sanitation %

Malawi Mozambique Tanzania Zambia

FIGURE 1.1: MAP OF MALAWI (WATSAN, 2013) FIGURE 1.2: SANITATION COVERAGE (WHO AND UNICEF, 2015)

Malawi being off track from sanitation targets requires concerted efforts to gain coverage
towards meeting the SDGs. In Malawi, about 5.2 million people rely on onsite sanitation
facilities mainly traditional pit latrines accounting for 75 percent (WSP, 2012; Malawi
Government, NSO and ICF Macro, 2011). The proper management of such facilities
poses serious challenges especially in rapidly growing urban cities within Malawi amidst
2
resource constraints coupled with limited local regulatory framework. City authorities are
grappling with the challenge of providing adequate and affordable sanitation services
within city limits.

1.3 Problem statement

This research focused on Mzuzu City, located in northern Malawi. The city population
reached 157,612 people in 2015 based on annual growth trends of 4.2 percent (UN-
HABITAT, 2011). Rapid urbanization has led to formation of informal urban settlements
within City limits. In Mzuzu City, informal settlements cover 48.3 percent with 94
percent of residents residing in informal settlements using pit latrines or septic tanks.
Mzuzu City has no sewerage system (Manda, 2009; UN-HABITAT, 2011).

The Mzuzu City Council is unable to provide adequate fecal sludge management (FSM)
services due to limited financial resources, technology options, and technical capacity to
empty pit latrines (UN-Habitat, 2011). Therefore, sanitation entrepreneurs using vacuum
tankers address this need, primarily focusing on emptying the septic tanks in the easily
accessible formal areas of the city.

Other globally available technology options, such as the pit screw augur and Diaphragm
pumps, are not available in Mzuzu. The available Gulper pump technology has limited
success in emptying pit latrines technology and is ergonomically not effective for use in
peri urban Mzuzu. The Gulper becomes difficult to operate with heavy sludge, often
requiring two operators to lift the contents of the riser tube. It is also difficult to access the
small, enclosed pit latrines in Mzuzu with the Gulper if two people need to be operating
the pump. Additionally, the Gulper does not reduce the risk of contact with sludge when
it empties into open containers. Hence modification to remedy Gulper technology design
limitations is required.

Currently, due to limited pit emptying technology options, households in the informal
urban settlements within Mzuzu primarily rely on the locally available options,
predominantly manual pit emptying (i.e., shoveling by hand, often with illegal disposal)
or digging a new pit latrine. These practices have associated health risks and are limited
by space constraints.

3
In view of the above, if the situation is left unchecked it negatively impacts on public
health in the urban environment. To fill the technological gap, this research focused on
pedal modification of Gulper technology to improve user ergonomics basing on initial
modifications trialed on locally available treadled pump technology as solution for
emptying full pit latrines in Area 1B, as an option to existing pit emptying technologies.

1.4 Main objective

The aim of this research was to design, develop and test a pit latrine emptying technology
as an option to existing technologies for pit emptying in peri urban Mzuzu.

1.4.1 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the study were:

i. To design a low cost pit latrine emptying technology, locally manufactured, as an

option to existing technologies for use in peri urban Mzuzu.

ii. To assess pump performance of developed pit latrine emptying technology in peri
urban Mzuzu in comparison to existing technologies.

1.5 Research questions

Based on the problem context, this study focused on the following research questions as
follows:
i. What technological design can effectively be used for emptying full pit latrines sludge
in peri urban Mzuzu?
ii. What are the parameters for developed pump performance criteria that can effectively
fill the technological gap in peri urban Mzuzu?

1.6 Justification of the study

The relevance of this study was to support pit latrine emptying technology options for
peri urban areas of Mzuzu City and other similar global settings.

1.7 Limitations of the study

The major limitation of the study was literature on pit latrine faecal sludge characteristics
for informal settlements in Mzuzu and within Malawi. As such, the study relied on global
case studies for reference regarding pit latrine sludge characteristics.
4
1.8 Scope of the research study

The study was restricted in scope to Area 1B, an informal settlement in peri urban Mzuzu,
Malawi. This was done in older to ensure the research was successful in terms of quality,
time, and resources available.

This study focused on semi-mechanized pit emptying technologies that are relatively low
cost to develop, operate and maintain. This narrowed focus considered dual needs of
sanitation entrepreneurs and serviced households in peri urban Mzuzu. Sanitation
entrepreneurs require low startup costs and serviced households have many pressing
needs on their limited resource base hence can afford low cost for pit emptying services.
Therefore, low cost and effective pit emptying technology can potentially bridge these
interests.

Non faecal material removal (fishing) tools already in existence were used to prevent
clogging of the developed pit emptying pump. They were further used to agitate dense
faecal sludge that require fluidization with addition of water to enhance extractability.
Therefore, development of fishing and fluidization tools is not focused upon, although
this study focused on pedal powered treadle pump and Gulper modification only.

This research looks at the broader context of the Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) chain
encompassing collection, transport, disposal and treatment. This research focuses on the
sludge collection component and in particular on emptying technologies based on the
technology gap identified within the problem context.

1.9 Conceptual framework

Figure 1.3 details the conceptual framework of the research efforts. Without regular
emptying, pit latrines eventually fill up and pose challenges to public health especially
within rapidly growing urban settlements. Due to densification, space to dig a new pit
latrine when the existing pit fills up is not always available in rapidly growing urban
settlements. Alternatively, abandoning a full pit latrine and or illegal dumping of faecal
sludge in the urban environment promotes vector and faecal coliform breeding leading to
worm infestation and diarrheal diseases. According to Gjefle (2011:10), diarrheal
diseases cause about 1.8 million deaths annually mostly among under five, parasitic
5
infections such as schistosomiasis affects 160 million people and intestinal worms infect
one in ten people in developing countries. The need for effective pit emptying
technologies for regular emptying of full pit latrines is essential to offset risks that accrue
to low income urban dwellers reliant on pit latrines.

In view of the challenges above, this research investigation began with review of existing
literature focusing on research questions on technological options for pit emptying in peri
urban Mzuzu. Thereafter, the conceptual design phase was undertaken by development of
diagrammatical sketches. Then the feasibility analysis phase was undertaken and focused
on mathematical and operational modeling. Dependent on feasibility analysis results,
fabrication of technology prototype was undertaken by first testing on mud slurry during
the design and development phase. This was done to assess performance of developed pit
latrine technology prototype on issues such as clogging and user ergonomics.

Based on the above mud slurry test, the developed pit latrine emptying technology was
tested on actual pit latrines in Area 1B as the designated study area in peri urban Mzuzu.
Data collected during testing of developed pit emptying technology was then analyzed to
enable objective evaluation and determination on suitability of technology option as
solution to research questions on appropriate technology for pit latrine emptying in peri
urban Mzuzu. The dissemination of findings was through conference papers and journal
paper.

6
 Effects Problem Causes Solution Research process

Existing knowledge: journal

Lack of pit
papers, reports etc.
Deaths especially of emptying
under five children -

Communication
Poor access to pit Study research questions
latrine: narrow
Worm infestation alleyways, location
and diarrheal of latrine behind
households Technology design
diseases
conceptualization: design
Develop effective
Full pit latrine in
criteria, literature, diagram.
pit emptying
Decommissioning of peri urban Mzuzu
Dumping non technology for peri
full pit latrine / or urban Mzuzu: Feasibility analysis of If no
faecal material in
illegal dumping of remove faecal and concept
pit latrines
faecal sludge non faecal matter
If yes
Lack of Prototype development:
No space for new appropriate pit fabrication cycle
pit latrine emptying
technology
Field testing: study area,
sampled pit latrines

Evaluation of results:
determination of
hypothesis validity

Figure 1.3: Schematic arrangement of conceptual framework

7
 CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the review of literature to identify gaps for technology
improvement as an option for use in peri urban Mzuzu.

2.2 Overview of fecal sludge management

In urban areas of developing countries onsite sanitation systems (OSS) predominate over
waterborne sewered sanitation systems (Strauss et al., 2003). According to the Water
Research Commission (2015), the use of pit latrines is widespread in many unplanned
urban settlements and rural areas in African countries.

However improved sanitation does not end with provision of OSS facilities such as pit
latrines being built (Strande, 2014). The management of accumulated faecal sludge in pit
latrines is essential. Boot (2007) defines faecal sludge management (FSM) as the
management chain encompassing excreta collection, transportation, disposal and
treatment for reuse. Despite widespread use of pit latrines within developing countries,
lack of functional FSM chain results in faecal sludge (FS) accumulation crisis (Strande,
2014).

The WRC (2015) attributes the above situation to biased focus on provision of sanitation
facilities than fore thought on operation and maintenance for continued use of the
facilities. Strande (2014) attributes the situation to low priority shown by engineers and or
city municipalities viewing OSS facilities as temporary solutions until waterborne sewers
are built. This has not materialized with an increasing influx of urban dwellers and
financial constraints limiting infrastructure investments in sewerage systems. Montenegro
et al. (2002) agrees on low priority as a contributing factor to the sludge accumulations
crisis as put by Strande (2014), but adds other factors such as lack of political will, long
distances and high pit latrine emptying charges as some factors perpetuating ineffective
FSM chain within developing countries.

8
2.3 Importance of pit emptying technologies

The emptying of existing pit latrines is essential for the sanitation facility to provide
continued access to sanitation in rapidly growing unplanned and or peri urban settlements
(Radford and Fenner, 2013). Pit emptying technologies comprising of manual,
mechanized and semi mechanized options ensure this service is provided. According to
ORiordan (2009), use of pit emptying technologies enables human excreta be disposed
safely offsite at treatment plants or sewage lines, if available. The act of removing excreta
offsite according to Tucker (2010) and Thye et al. (2009) enables the continued use of the
sanitation facility to contribute fully to health outcomes.

Additionally, Tucker (2010) and Sharpe (2010) add it is cheaper to empty a pit latrine
than build a new one (considering cost for materials and labour amidst space constraints),
and provide employment opportunities for pit emptying workers thereby contribute to the
local economy. A notable example is manual pit emptying program in eThikwini
Municipality in South Africa where manual emptying method is being used to empty
4500 pit latrines (VIP) every 5 years undertaken with municipal support (Still and Foxon,
2012). In agreement Sudgen (2013) describes unskilled manual pit workers in Bangalore,
India receive double the rate paid for unskilled labourers and in Mzuzu, Malawi Mr.
Clean operates a successful vacuum truck service. These examples attest to benefits of
pit emptying beyond improved public health.

However, Rogers (2013), Coe (2010) and Tucker (2010) note a lack of pit emptying
technology options, resource constraints, and access challenges to rapidly growing urban
settlements. The WRC (2015) agrees by describing pit emptying technologies such as
vacuum trucks are often expensive for many in unplanned squatter areas with limited
access due to densification. Coe (2015) further asserts that vacuum trucks have problems
in removal of dry FS and trash (nappies, rags, bottles etc.) found in many pit latrines. As
such, many in the unplanned squatter areas rely on manual pit emptying with serious
health implication when done without protective clothing and if extracted FS is dumbed
indiscriminately. The lack of institutional support and maintenance pose challenges to pit
emptying technologies (WRC, 2015).

9
2.4 Policy and institutional framework on pit emptying technologies in Malawi

Generally, review of the policy and institutional framework in Malawi reveals the lack of
specific focus on FSM chain nor prescribes appropriate technology options for pit latrine
emptying. According to the Malawi Government, Environmental Management Act (2010)
part 1, clause 37 section 1 and 2 outline the broad oversight mandate of waste
management to councils as the appropriate authority to regulate collection,
transportation and safe disposal of waste. Thereafter under the same clause as stated
above, section 3 subsection a, b and c sets the need for councils to formulate standards
and control the waste management chain.

The Malawi Government, National Environmental Policy (2004) focuses on development

of sanitation master plans to district or city councils to improve waterborne sanitation
systems and solid waste disposal using appropriate technology. The focus on waterborne
system and lack of mention of pit latrines amplifies lack of focus on such sanitation
facilities operation and maintenance measures with regards to the FSM chain. Malawi
Government, National Water Policy (2005) focuses on equitable access to water supply
and sanitation by individuals and entrepreneurs in urban, peri urban and market centers.
There is no mention of FSM.

The Malawi Government, National Sanitation Policy (2008) advocates for provision of
sanitation facilities at household level and describes some features of desired latrine.
These include the latrine facility should be safe for disposal of faeces into a pit or other
receptacle where it may be safely stored, composted or removed and disposed of safely
elsewhere; latrine pit or receptacle should be functional i.e. not full or over flowing
(Malawi Government NSP, 2008). It clearly states composted or removed but does not
give specific technology options for FS removal or latrine features to enable easy access
for pit emptying technologies. The Malawi Government NWP (2005) does acknowledge
the need for pit latrines to remain functional. Therefore, due to the general lack of specific
mention on FSM issues, the national and local legislation covering the removal of FS
from full pit latrines is weak in Malawi (Holm et al. 2015)

10
According to WRC (2015), only three countries out of eight in sub Saharan Africa set
minimum standards of sanitation facility namely Botswana (double vaulted VIP latrine),
South Africa (VIP latrine) and Zimbabwe (Blair VIP latrine). Notably, South Africa
included a removable slab for access to FS in VIP pit latrines (WRC, 2015). Further
review of the local legislative framework in Malawi shows no mention of FSM (WRC,
2015).

The institutional architecture for sanitation is spread between Ministry of Irrigation and
Water Development, city councils and the Ministry of Health and Population (WRC,
2015). City councils are mandated by the local Government act of 1998 to provide and
manage urban infrastructure and services including sewerage (UN-Habitat, 2011).

However, the Water Works Act and the National Sanitation Policy give mandate to water
boards (Manda, 2009). This has not materialized with water boards focusing on water
supply services and city councils providing regulatory oversight and services with regards
to sanitation. City councils have limited resources for infrastructure development for
urban services including sanitation. A case in point is Mzuzu City where sanitation and
refuse collection services are concentrated in formal areas while those in informal
settlements lack such services (UN-Habitat, 2011).

The gap in services is occupied by non-governmental organizations and private sector

sanitation entrepreneurs (Manda, 2009; UN-Habitat, 2011 and Mzuzu City Council,
2013). The focus by government on sanitation is raising awareness through hygiene
education or treatment during disease outbreak (Manda, 2009). Therefore, the policy and
institutional framework in Malawi is generally weak on FSM. Similar observations were
made by Peal et al. (2014) in review of twelve cities in developing and middle income
countries.

2.5 Onsite sanitation facilities in Malawi

Pit latrines (basic) (Figure 2.1 a, b) with permanent or temporary superstructures such as
logs, cartons, sacks, black polythene and having concrete or mud slabs are widely used
(75 percent) in Malawi (WRC, 2015). Malawi Government NSP (2008) describes basic
11
latrine facilities as those without hygiene features such as a squat hole cover, key hole
shaped drop hole and foot rests for appropriate positioning to the drop hole. The pit
latrines can either be lined or unlined depending on hydrogeological conditions. Access to
FS is through the drop hole as no provision is made for removable slab without
destroying the superstructure unlike VIP latrines is the South Africa (WRC, 2015).

Figure 2.1: Basic latrine facility (a) and inside view of squat hole in Area 1B within peri urban Mzuzu
Source: Chipeta (2014)

Other sanitation facilities available include the Ventilated Improved Pit latrines (VIP),
Eco San latrines (Arborloo, skyloo and Fossa Artena) and septic tank. The cost for
sanitation facilities is often beyond willingness of those in informal settlements due
tenancy uncertainty and low adoption (Eco San latrines) because of reluctance to handle
human FS (Manda, 2009).

2.6 Pit latrine sludge characteristics and accumulation rates

The nature of faecal sludge such as quantity, accumulation rates and density varies within
cities (Niwagamba et al. 2014; Boot, 2007). According to WRC (2015), Still and Foxon
(2012) agree with observation on variations in pit FS characteristics and attribute this to
pit size, soil type, groundwater level, numbers of users, diet, type of cleansing material
and solid waste dumped in pit latrines. Similar observations were made by Rose et al.
(2015). Table 2.1 shows varying faecal production rates in varying locations globally.

Presence of trash (Figure 2.2) in pit latrines complicates nature of sludge characteristics
and hastens fill rates. Modeled filling rates by Brounckaert, Foxon and Wood (2013),
predicts filling rate time could be extended from 15 to over 25 years if trash was excluded
from the pit basing on observations of VIP latrines in eThekwini, South Africa. The

12
absence or limited solid waste collection services to unplanned settlements exacerbates
the situation (Prasad, 2013; Still and Foxon, 2012).

Table 2.1: Faecal production rates Source: Niwagamba et al. (2014)

Figure 2.2: Rags removed from pit latrine in Area 1B (informal settlement in Mzuzu City, Malawi) Source:
Chipeta (2015)

13
To aid understanding of pit sludge characteristics given the lack of certainty, Buckley et
al. (2008) developed a theoretical model of layers within a full pit latrine. Figure 2.3
details theoretical models of layers in a pit latrine.

Figure 2.3: Theoretical model of layers in a pit latrine from Buckley et al. (2008)

The above theoretical models details the top layer (i) floating scum, (ii) comprises of a
layer where rapid aerobic degradation occurs, (iii) is where partial aerobic breakdown
occurs and (iv) is the layer where anaerobic processes occur due to limited oxygen
(Buckley et al. 2008; Still and Foxon 2012; Bakare, 2014). In contrast a study by Seal
(2012) on 110 pit in Kiberia, using a dual cone penetrometer showed many inconsistences
deviating from Buckley theoretical model. These included sludge with variable layers
such as consistently soft or hard, with hard layers having water like bases. As such,
sludge characterization should be done on site to determine accurate results than to
generalize considering observed variations.

Brounckaert, Foxon and Wood (2013) agree with the Buckley model on biological
transformations but categorize FS as being fine sludge meaning virtually homogenous
with maximum particle size of 1 mm while coarse sludge comprises of larger particle
sizes such as plastic bags with little or no biological transformations taking place.

14
The density and shear strength of fecal sludge varies due to settling overtime as a result of
biological processes. According to a recent study in Kampala, Uganda, by Radford and
Sudgen (2014), values for sludge shear strength were approximately 2000 pa, 5 times
stronger that reported in previous studies by Bosch and Schertenleib (1985). Literature
on FS characteristics in Malawi was limited but acknowledge research being undertaken
by Mzuzu University and Polytechnic University on pit sludge characterization during the
time of the review (WRC, 2015).

Further observation by Radford and Sudgen (2014), noted significant scope to improve
pit emptying performance through in pit fluidization and mean values for sludge density
was found to be 1001 Kg m-3. Advancing the concept above, Radford and Fenner (2013)
developed sludge simulation parameters that corresponds to characteristics observed in
actual pit latrines.

The simulant mixture of actual pit latrine FS as proposed by Radford and Fenner (2013)
comprises 70 percent clay and 30 percent compost with shear strength controlled by water
content with incremental variations of 5 percent up to a maximum of 125 percent. The
incremental variations of water enable the full strength range of fecal sludge in a pit
latrine to be covered for more accurate tests of pit emptying technology prototypes.
However, pit characteristics remain unpredictable due the nature of rubbish contents.

2.7 Pit Emptying technologies: pros and cons

2.7.1 Manual pit emptying

Pit emptying of onsite sanitation facilities is dominated by manual pit emptying method
(Boot 2007). This method involves use of varying hand tools such as spades to dig out
contents, shovels and buckets to scoop the faecal sludge from the pit by removing or
destroying the squatting slab (O'Riordan, 2009; Still and Foxon, 2012; Thye, Templeton
and Ali, 2009; 2011). Materials for manual pit emptying are sometimes borrowed or
rented from the customer and can potentially become contaminated (Thye, Templeton and
Ali, 2011). Manual empting typically involves two people whereby one has a rope and the
15
other a bucket inside the pit latrine (Boot, 2007). The act of going down into the pit
latrine (Figure, 2.4) is common within Sub Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia (Mikhael
et al. 2014).

Figure 2.4: A manual worker (frogman) at work in Dar es Salaam Source: (ORiodan, 2009)

Manual workers inside the latrine are at risk of pit collapse especially when emptying
unlined pits (Radford and Fenner, 2013; Boot, 2007 and Eales, 2005). Therefore, Boot
(2007) warns against this practice as entering the pit without a safety rope and a colleague
to lift the worker up can be fatal when the pit collapses.

Additionally, contact levels with fecal sludge poses serious health risks to workers
without protective clothing (Coe, 2010). In Kibera, Kenya, manual workers often do not
wear any protective clothing for health and safety while workers in Durban, South Africa,
wear heavy gloves and gumboots (Eales, 2005; Still and Foxon, 2012). Manual workers
without protective clothing and in direct contact with faecal sludge face many health
risks.

Human excreta contains many pathogens that include Ascaris, Trichuris, and Taenia spp.
(roundworm, whipworm, and tape worm) (van Vuuren, 2008; Thye, Templeton and Ali,
2011, Still and Foxon, 2012). As such, manual workers are vulnerable to many faecal
related illnesses that include typhoid, cholera and many others (Oxfam, 2008; Tucker,
2010). Safety wear is not an option rather a must for manual workers when handling FS.

16
Gas build up is another risk faced by manual workers (Scott and Reed, 2006). Ventilation
issues of pit latrines must be carefully considered for pits deeper than 1.5 m (Bhagwan et
al. 2008; Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2011). Eales (2005) adds cuts from sharp objects
(glass, needles) if present cause injuries and can expose manual worker faecal pathogens.
In low-income urban areas of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the emptying process can take
between 2 and 7 days, and during this period the latrine and disposal hole is left
uncovered (Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2011). This is not only inconvenient but also
dangerous to users (Muller and Rijnsburger, 1994). Flies attracted by the odour from
exposed faecal sludge can further spread faecal pathogen to the wider community within
the vicinity of where manual emptying is done.

Manual pit emptying is further associated with stigmatization of manual pit workers.
Eales (2005) notes the lack of social acceptance of manual pit emptying and more
generally handling of human excreta by manual workers contributes to them being treated
like outcasts. This is exemplified in circumstances where manual workers are given
degrading names such as scavengers, vyura (Swahili for frogman), baye pelle (pick and
shovel) or Kalea bailer (extreta bailers) as described by Mikhael et al. (2014).

Despite many shortfalls to manual pit emptying method, there are also advantages. The
method is robust as it requires many workers and even when a worker is ill others can
continue with the work unlike when a pit emptying machine breakdown (Still and Foxon,
2012). Manual pit emptying offers employment to local communities hence a source of
income for livelihood support. A notable example is manual pit emptying program in
eThikwini Municipality in South Africa where manual emptying method is being used to
empty 4500 pit latrines (VIP) every 5 years undertaken with municipal support (Still and
Foxon 2012). Although future and continued support by the municipality cannot be
ascertained hence sustainability for the foreseeable future remains uncertain.

Manual pit emptying is accessible where conventional vacuum tankers fail to removes
rubbish found in latrines as well as dense sludge. It has lower capital startup costs and
considering the unhygienic nature and social stigma associated with the work, manual pit
emptying workers are often paid well above the minimum wage (Eales, 2005; Still and
Foxon, 2012). Linyama et al. (2014) acknowledges safe manual emptying of faecal
17
sludge from pit latrines using personal protective clothing and garden tools is an option
for low income areas in Zambia. This depends on institutional support.

2.7.2 Semi-mechanized pit emptying technologies

Several manually operated mechanized tools have been developed for pit emptying.
These include systems based on principles of pumps, augers, belts or chains (Still and
Foxon, 2012). According to Thye, Templeton and Ali (2011), such mechanized pit
emptying technologies when compared to manual pit emptying may improve efficiency
and safety of emptying process (Mikhael et al. 2014).

The manual pit emptying technology (MAPET) was developed in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania, at a cost of USD$3,000 in the 1990s by WASTE Consultants in cooperation
with the Dar es Salaam Sewerage and Sanitation Department (Muller and Rijnsburger,
1994; Boot, 2007, Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2011). The reliance on human power means
the MAPET (Figure, 2.5) did not rely on fossil fuels hence operating costs were reduced.

Figure 2.5: The MAPET System (WASTE, 2009) Source: Still and Foxon (2012).

The MAPET was comprised of a piston pump, flywheel and 200-litre vacuum tank as
storage means to facilitate transportation via a push cart (Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2009;
2011; Muller and Rijnsburger, 1994). Other components included a 20 mm air hose
connected to the 200 litre (0.2 m3) tank with a 100 mm pipe used to extract faecal sludge
(Muller and Rijnsburger, 1994; Bakare 2014). Hand tools such as a sludge mixing rod, a

18
hook and a hoe were used to pick out any miscellaneous items that may block the suction
hose (O'Riordan, 2009; Tucker, 2010).

The flywheel was turned manually to drive a piston in a 6 inch PVC cylinder, which
removes air from the storage tank and the resulting vacuum causes sludge to be sucked
directly into the tank (Tucker, 2010). As the sludge does not pass through the pump, it
was less susceptible to wear (O'Riordan, 2009). Because of the variations in viscosity of
faecal sludge, the 200-litre tank took about 5 to 20 minutes to fill up (Kirango and Muller,
1997; Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2011) hence faster rate of extraction was achieved. It
eliminated direct contact with faecal sludge as done with manual workers thereby
reducing health risks. The system was capable of extracting faecal sludge from pits of
depths up to 3 m (Tucker, 2010).

However, the system was not able to extract dense waste and became blocked by
domestic refuse (O'Riordan, 2009). The initial phase brought about success but ultimately
failed due to lack of a supportive environment both institutionally and spare parts
availability (Building Partnership for Development (BPD), 2008). Using wheels for the
pushcart that were inexpensive meant sacrificing durability (Tucker, 2010). The 200-litre
vacuum tank was an oil drum and prone to corrosion and imploded under the normal
operating pressure of -0.4 bar (O'Riordan, 2009; Tucker, 2010).

The capital cost of the system was high; around $3,000 US (Thye, Templeton and Ali,
2009). The pump had a 6 inch PVC cylinder made from sewage piping encasing a leather
piston of which the sewage piping was available locally but the piston leather had to be
imported from the Netherlands (Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2011; Mikhael et al. 2014). As
such, when the machine broke down, parts were not available for maintenance. According
to Boot (2007), the need to import spare parts and lack of institutional support were the
main factors that led to failure of the MAPET system. Still and Foxon (2012) added carry
over responsibility of MAPET system by the Dar es Salaam city authorities never
happened and the system is no longer in use (BPD, 2005, Mikhael et al. 2014).

Another semi-mechanized pit emptying technology was developed by Steve Sugden, the
Manual emptying hand pump (MDHP) system in 2007 for pit latrine emptying nicknamed
the Gulper (Tucker 2010; Mikhael et al. 2014). The Gulper (Figure 2.6) design was
19
developed as an inexpensive and highly portable emptying device (Still and Foxon,
2012).

Figure 2.6 a, b: Gulper in action (a) and sludge container (b) (Steve Sudgen) Source: Still and Foxon
(2012)

The design of the Gulper was based on a highly simple mechanism of a single hand pump
design generally used to pump water. The Gulper functions by lowering of the extraction
pipe into the pit latrine and the operator lifts a handle at the top of the tube, which is
connected to a pulling rod with a butterfly valve on the end (Oxfam, 2008). Two workers
operate the pump by moving the handle at the top of the machine up and down (Still and
Foxon, 2012). The upward and downward motion of the handle correspondingly opens
and closes valves underneath guiding the faecal sludge up the riser pipe to exit the pump
via a downward spout (Mikhael 2014). It has a screen fitted at the end of the riser pipe as
a preventive measure for non faecal material that can clog the pump.

The Gulper pump is portable, simple and cheap to manufacture and has had excellent
results in Dar-Es Salaam on the liquid type of faecal sludge that is characteristic of the
pits found in Tanzania (O'Riordan, 2009). Trials and testing continue in Kampala,
Uganda and Blantyre, Malawi (Still and Foxon, 2012). According to Boot (2007), the
Gulper can be assembled locally by artisans in developing country contexts of Africa and
Asia. It is constructed from PVC piping for the casing and galvanized iron pipe for the
pulling rod and valve (Oxfam, 2008). But in Malawi, only one supplier is available
(Malawi Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, 2014).
The possibility of contact between the waste and the user is reduced but not eliminated
entirely. The capital cost of the system is around USD$40 to USD$1400 dependent on the
20
design and materials used (Thye, 2009; Boot, 2007; Still and Foxon, 2012; Godfrey,
2012; Mikhael et al. 2014). The lower production cost enables small scale independent
providers purchase the pump.

The system is advantageous to manual extraction in terms of exhaustion rates as it can

empty 2-3 m3 of sludge in 2 to 3 hours (Ideas-at-Work, 2007). Mikhael et al. (2014)
reported Gulper flow rates of 30 litres (0.03 m3) per minute. It is portable, allowing access
through narrow alleyways in informal settlements unlike conventional vacuum tankers. It
is easy to operate regardless of educational level.

The main drawback of the Gulper pump is it is unable to extract densely packed waste
found at the bottom of the pit latrines and high levels of domestic refuse (Tucker, 2010).
The screen at the end of the rising pipe of the Gulper can be blocked by materials such as
cloths that require to be manually removed. The length of the Gulper is fixed at 2m
(Ideas-at-Work, 2007) to limit the size of the pit to empty.

Additionally, the Gulper requires two workers to operate when the sludge moves up the
riser pipe, making up and down strokes becomes heavy. The two Gulper operators inside
the pit latrine are exposed to potential collapse of the squatting slab if made of weak
materials. Liquid sludge can splash onto the operators during pumping motions. This is
unpleasant and poses health risks to workers without protective clothing.

To overcome depth limitations of the Gulper Technology, modifications have been trialed
focusing on adjustable riser pipe for effective extraction of faecal sludge from varying pit
latrine depths (Michael et al. 2014). Resultant of such efforts, the Rammer (Figure, 2.7)
was developed. Its components parts are made of steel and galvanized iron hence are both
robust and durable at a cost of USD$191 (Water for people, 2014). According to Malinga
(2015), the technology is capable of pumping thicker sludge, delivers FS to receptacle,
reaches depths of 3m and uses a lever arm to energy input to operate the technology.
Trials for the rammer technology are ongoing in Malawi and other developing country
context.

21
 Figure 2.7: Rammer technology Source: Malinga (2015)

Future efforts of the technology development of the Rammer is towards development of

the peddler (Figure 2.8) operated technology model of the device (Water for people,
2014). This has not yet been explored and requires further research to advance the Gulper
technology further.

Figure 2.8: Peddler model of the rammer Source: Water for people (2014)

The Nibbler is a second device developed by Steve Sugden, and uses a continuous chain
system to convey the waste out of the pit (Tucker 2010, Still and Foxon, 2012). The
technology was most effective on faecal sludge of moderate viscosity and relies on a
roller chain motion in an enclosed PVC pipe (Mikhael et al. 2014) as can be seen in
Figure 2.9.

22
 Figure 2.9: The Nibbler (Steve Sudgen) Source: Still and Foxon (2012)

The metal disks which are wielded onto a single chain that runs down the length of an
extraction tube. These disks scoop the waste which conveyed upwards into a
transportation container (Tucker, 2010). The driving mechanism of the technology is
manual through rotational motion of a double crank and sprocket on the upper part of the
pipe (Mikhael et al. 2014).

However, during trials many challenges were encountered with the chain driving
mechanism hence production was suspended at that nascent stage (Mikhael et al. 2014).
Still and ORiodian (2012) explored the concept further and developed the Gobbler
basing on the initial Nibbler concept but it proved too heavy and prone to multiple
failures modes and high spare part count. The main drawback of this system was the
inability to extract dense waste and unable to extract any domestic refuse such as plastic
bottles or nappies as the size of the extraction tube is only about 100mm in diameter
(Tucker, 2010).

Another semi-mechanized pit emptying technology is the Diaphragm pump (Figure 2.10).
This is a simple low cost pump (USD$ 300 to 850) capable of extracting low viscous
faecal sludge (Michael et al. 2014). The cost to manufacture the technology is comparable
to the Gulper hence can be used by small scale independent providers. The diaphragm
pump operates by the push and pull motion that causes deformation in similitude to a
rubber plunger when unblocking a toilet (Michael et al. 2014).

23
To prevent ingress of non faecal matter clogging the pump, a strainer non-returning foot
valve is fitted at the end (Michael et al. 2014). The working mechanism is similar to those
described of the Gulper but wide scale adoption of the technology has not yet
materialized.

Figure 2.10: Diaphragm pump in Bangladesh Source: Mikhael (2014)

The major challenges of the diaphragm pump include frequent blockages, wearing out of
parts and their availability (Michael et al. 2014; Muller and Rijnsburger, 1992).

Another semi mechanized technology is the People Powered Pool Pump (Figure, 2.11)
which was developed by Sharpe (2010) for emptying pit latrines within slums of Dar es
Salaam. The design comprises of global cycle solutions adapter, corn Sheller for power
transmission and a vacuum pump (5mm air hose) at a cost of USD$60 with total cost of at
USD$200.

The novel concept combined use of the bicycle for power generation for sludge extraction
and transportation of extracted sludge in a 25 litre bucket. The design was inspired by the
MAPET design but made use of a bicycle which is locally available within many
developing country contexts. The premise of the design was to enable more frequent
emptying of 25 litres (weekly) and affordable.

24
 Figure 2.11: The People Powered Poop Pump (P-Quad) Source: Sharpe, (2010)

The P-Quad was being trialed in Dar es Salaam but progress to date remains uncertain. To
remove smaller amount of sludge can be more affordable but customer preference can be
subjective as some can prefer emptying larger amounts. The vacuum based system has
not been effective in emptying pit latrine sludge due to dry nature of sludge and presence
of trash.

2.7.3 Mechanized technologies

Fully mechanized pit emptying technologies comprise of systems powered by electricity,

fuel or pneumatic systems (Mikhael et al. 2014). They include vacuum based
technologies, motorized diaphragm pumps, pit screw augers. There are several
technologies that utilize vacuum based systems. They include vacuum pumps of varying
ranges from heavy duty tracks to smaller human powered carts (Mikhael et al. 2014).
These vacuum systems function by utilizing atmospheric pressure or high rates of air to
suck faecal sludge through the hose into the container under a partial vacuum (Thye,
Templeton and Ali, 2011).

The conventional vacuum tanker technology for works is often used in areas with access
roads plot and the pit latrine (Thye, Templeton and Ali, 2011). The major advantage
being minimal contact with the sludge and ably transports the extracted faecal sludge via
the container mounted on the truck (Eales, 2005). The technology originates from
industrialized countries and has a hose that connects the pit contents on to the storage
25
tank that range between 1 and 10 m3 in capacity (Klingel et al. 2002). According to
Pickford and Shaw (1997), a vacuum tanker is capable of extracting faecal sludge from
depths of up 3 m. Depth depends on the density and viscosity of the sludge as well as the
height of the tank above the ground.

However, tankers are not suitable for low-income and slum areas, where much of the
population in cities of developing countries live. In many planned areas and settlements,
it is possible for latrines to be emptied using fully mechanized systems while in
unplanned areas, where access is limited and the roads are poor and narrow this becomes
problematic, as the tankers are too large (O'Riordan, 2009, Tucker 2010). Presence of
domestic refuse content of the waste is often high which can block the suction hose of
tankers, leading to increase of maintenance costs of the technology (Tucker, 2010).

The convectional vacuum tankers (Figure 2.12) are imported from developed countries
hence require specialized parts that are not easily available in developing thereby not
sustainable. The cost of the tankers themselves is prohibitive ranging from USD$10,000
to 100,000 or more (Mikhael et al. 2014; Boot, 2007).

Figure 2.12: A vacuum tanker in Accra, Ghana. Source: Boot (2007)

Another vacuum based technology is the Dung beetle (Figure 2.13). According to Tucker
(2010) the Dung beetle was developed by the sewer cleaning company J. Hvidtved
Larsen. The system has been in use in Ghana for many years and comprises of a
miniature vacuum tanker using a two-wheel tractor based drive. The driver sits on top of
the tank.

26
 Figure 2.13: The Dung Beetle Source: O'Riordan (2009)

The Dung Beetles vacuum pump has a capacity of 4300 litres a minute and the tank can
hold 800 litres (Tucker, 2010). It is only 3.5 m long and has a turning radius of 3 m
(O'Riordan, 2009); however, gaining access to pit latrines in densely populated slums is
still problematic.

Additionally, the method of suction for the extraction of waste remains unsuitable due to
the dense nature of sludge and the high levels of domestic refuse in many pits. The focus
of many developments of vacuum based systems is scaling down the size of the
conventional tanker rather than a modification in lifting mechanism. In this way, the dung
beetle and other designs such as the Vacutug, Micravac face similar challenges (Thye,
Templeton and Ali, 2011).

Alternatively, motorized diaphragm pumps operate using the same principles as the
manual diaphragm pumps and have multiple applications including faecal sludge
extraction (Mikhael et al. 2014). The diaphragm pump mostly used for pumping FS is
driven by a petrol or diesel engine (Mikhael et al. 2014). According to MSF (2010), the
diaphragm pump is ideal for pumping liquefied sludge with lesser tolerance of denser
faecal matter (MSF, 2010).

The Diaphragm sludge pump (Figure 2.14b) was manufactured by Briggs and Stratlon
Limited, Model number CRP 580C, and pressure washer (Figure 2.14a), Model Code
020380 (WATSAN, 2013). The two technologies are used as a unit. Pressure Washer

27
fluidizes the faecal sludge found in pit then the Diaphragm pump extracts the faecal
sludge. Fluidizing occurs by connecting the pressure washer to the main water supply line
or an onsite tank thereby water is injected into the pit at very high pressure thereby taking
the solid sludge into fluid phase.

The actual pumping of the sludge is done using the Diaphragm Sludge pump to extract
sludge using suction power similar in conventional vacuum tankers. The system has an 80
mm suction hose and outlet hose of the same diameter to evacuate pumped sludge onto
onsite holding containers. The system requires extensive removal of non faecal material
to mitigate against clogging as it does not have a filtering mechanism to prevent entry.

Figure 2.14: Pressure Washer (a) and Diaphragm Sludge Pump (b) (Photo: Chipeta 2014)

The pressure washer and diaphragm pump has undergone trials in Africa with South
Africa as a test case where results show the technology was prone to blockages by non
faecal material (ORiordan, 2009). Trials in Malawi by WATSAN (2013) showed the
diaphragm pump was able to lift mud slurry from 2.5 m below ground surface after
fluidization with a pressure pump. The slurry did not contain any rubbish as is found in
pit latrines which can block the inlet pipe. Additionally, spare part availability is
problematic in developing country context and cost of the technology is prohibitive to
small scale independent providers of the sanitation sector as a 3-inch motorized
diaphragm pump costs about USD$2,000 (WATSAN, 2013).

Another fully mechanized system is utilizes Augers or Archimedean spirals which use
screws to lift up material through a pipe (Still and Foxon, 2012). The concept on Auger
28
based technology was first developed through research work by Tucker (2010) and Coe
(2010) who developed a computer aided design model (CAD) (Figure 2.15 a), product
design specification (PDS) and analyzed the drive mechanism. They focused on a hand
crank, manually operated to drive the screw conveyor system and tested on compost,
wood chips and bark and reported low flow rates.

Similar work was explored by Still and ORiordan also explored a manual power Auger
but the necessary rotational speed proved impractical and this led to the development of a
fully mechanized Auger (Figure 2.15b) through work done by Still and ORiordan (2012).
The mechanized auger technology was unable to pump out FS during tests on VIP latrines
in South Africa due to presence of trash (Figure 2.15c) (Still and ORiordan, 2012).

Figure 2.15: Auger CAD model (a), mechanized Auger (b) and trash in VIP latrine (c) Source: Coe (2010:
a); Still and ORiordan (2012: b and c)

Further improvements on the auger designs was undertaken by Rogers (2013). North
Carolina State University developed the Power Earth Auger Modification (nicknamed
Excrevator) at a cost of USD$4900 (Rogers, 2013). The extraction auger was
developed to meet the need for a low cost, effective method to empty pit latrines in
difficult to access locations. The basic design consists of a motor that rotates an auger
inside a pipe, lifting waste from a pit and depositing it into containers through a Y
fitting at the top of the device.

29
Field testing (Figure 2.16 a, b and c) was undertaken in India, South Africa and within
informal settlements of Mzuzu with support of Mzuzu University (Rogers, 2015). It
operates using a motor which drive auger that rotates hydraulically within a 120 mm pipe
and requires no fluidizing of faecal sludge. It does however require removal of non faecal
material, such as rags, to prevent clogging as it has no filtering mechanism. This
technology is also unique in that due to the height of the equipment and needed working
space, it requires an access hole on the side of pit sub structure in peri urban Mzuzu.

Figure 2.16: Removal of non faecal material (a) Excrevator (b) and rag clogged inlet of the screws during
testing at Chiputula in Peri urban Mzuzu, Malawi (Photo: Chipeta 2014)

Tests using the Excrevator showed flow rates of an average of 4.5 litres per minute was
achieved basing on results from two pit latrines where testing was successfully
undertaken. Testing on two other pit latrines was not successful due to clogging and
development of a technical fault respectively. These findings vary with reported flow
rates for the Excrevator which according to Rogers (2013) could lift dairy waste over 2.5
meters, at flow rates of over 125 litres per minute (lpm) when hydraulically driven.

The variation found in Mzuzu conditions can be due to varying operational conditions
and clogging of cloths in the riser pipe during testing which reduced the flow capacity
hence not able to reach optimum operational conditions. The capital cost of the device
was considerably high although consideration has to be made on the fact it was still
undergoing development as such focus was on functionality. Further improvements to
overcome observed limitations of the Excrevator technology are continuing to be
explored at North Carolina State University.

30
Another technology based on the vacuum system is the ROM2 (Figure 2.17)
manufactured in the Netherlands and tested on pit latrines and septic tanks within peri
urban, high density settlements and institutional toilets in Blantyre Malawi (Waste
advisers and NL Red Cross, 2014). This was part of a project on emergency sanitation
where emptying was identified as a gap to reduce risks for faecal related disease spread in
such situation. The Vacutug MK 2 and Diaphragm pump which was also tested but was
earlier reviewed. Therefore, ROM2 is the technology focused upon.

The cost of the ROM2 was not stated but additional more modifications were undertaken
locally such as welding of the inspection cover was undertaken locally at an estimated
cost 330. The vacuum pump had a capacity to pump 2500 litres per minute and weighs
about 2 tonnes (Waste advisers and NL Red Cross, 2014).

Figure 2.17: The ROM 2 being towed a vehicle for testing in Blantyre, Malawi Source: Waste advisers and
NL Red Cross, (2014)

Field testing of the ROM2 was undertaken on 189 sanitation facilities (16 septic tanks, 19
lined pit latrines, 60 unlined pit latrines and abandoned pit latrines-number not provided)
in settlements with Blantyre in Malawi (Waste advisers and NL Red Cross, 2014). The
technology performed well after fluidizing of sludge and removal of trash in pit contents.
The ROM2 included extraction rate of 800 litres in 4 minutes, can access pits at 30 m
distance and 2 m elevation, storage facility of extracted sludge and uses 0.2 litres fuel per
pit. Main challenges encountered included leakages in the suction system and blockages

31
in the discharge hose caused by trash (medicine bottles, stones, charcoal) found in pits
similar to other vacuum based systems (Waste advisers and NL Red Cross 2014).

2.8 Technological gap analysis and theoretical framework

Based on reviewed literature, an enabling institutional and policy framework remains

weak in Malawi and this poses challenges to sustainability of technology interventions.
Sanitation facilities in peri urban Mzuzu are mainly basic pit latrines and access to FS is
through the sanitation keyhole pit emptying technology option must adapt to such a
context.

The review has further shows implications of varying nature of pit sludge characteristics
including variation in density, viscosity and presence of rubbish poses significant
challenges to pit emptying technologies. To effectively pump out dense sludge requires
fluidization. The presence of rubbish in particular complicates nature of FS characteristics
hence manual removal of trash through the use of metal rods with hooks at the bottom
(2m to 3m height) can reduce potential blockages of semi mechanized and mechanized pit
latrine emptying technologies.

Additionally, comparative review of pit emptying options highlights that the manual pit
emptying option is versatile in terms of enabling access to pits in densely populated areas
and potentially sustainable (use unskilled labour and locally available tools) hence have
lower operational and maintenance cost than semi mechanized and mechanized options.
However, it is generally slow and contact levels with faecal sludge remain unacceptable
especially for manual workers without protective wear.

Alternatively, the fully mechanized emptying technologies can ably remove contact with
waste and have high extraction times. But generally require fossil fuels to be operated
hence costly. The cost to purchase of the equipment is generally high from developed
countries and spare parts availability is problematic hence face sustainability challenges.
Access to low income informal settlements is usually limited, blockages are frequent
because of trash and cost of emptying are generally high to cover operational and
maintenance costs.

32
Semi-mechanized systems have the potential to fill the gap. In particular, the Gulper has
shown considerable success in varying contexts in Asia and Africa. Its maximum pumping
depth is 1.5 m depth and uses direct hand operation to remove FS from pits. The Gulper
pump effectiveness is limited due its use of arms which only removes less dense sludge
generally found at the top of full pit latrines that underlying layers which are denser in
many pit latrines as observed by Buckley et al. (2008). The Gulper pump is further limited
by its maximum pumping depth of 1.5 m hence cannot remove FS from deeper pits
(beyond 1.5m).

In view of the above limitations with the Gulper technology, the Rammer technology was
developed by Water for People (2014). The Rammer Technology is an improvement of
the Gulper and capable of reaching depths of 3 m and lever operated using arms. Future
work suggested by Water for People (2014) included a peddler version of the Rammer,
which has not yet been explored. Hence further exploration of the peddler version of the
Rammer and Gulper pump technology can avail new knowledge on use of pedal power
mechanism for pit latrine emptying. The Rammer technology is still undergoing field
trials according to Water for People (2014). As such, the pedal modification of the
Gulper technology was conceptualized and focused upon as an option for pit latrine
emptying in peri urban Mzuzu with further determination on feasibility of engineering
design.

To begin the feasibility of the pedal modification on existing Gulper technology, further
literature reviews were undertaken to examine the pros and cons of its current operating
mechanism. Basing on review of literature, the Gulper pump technology is the most
widely used technology option in developing countries around the world. It is actuated in
the same way as a bike pump, with a T-handle that the operator lifts up and pushes down.
Two swing door check valves, one on the plunger and one at the base of the riser tube,
control the flow of sludge. The operator draws sludge up through the riser tube and it
pours out of the outlet pipe into whatever receptacle the operator has available. A diagram
of the Gulper can be seen below in Figure 2.18.

33
 Figure 2.18: Existing technology for emptying latrines, the Gulper. The Gulper is
affordable and effective, but not ergonomic or particularly sanitary

The Gulper is advantageous to manual extraction in terms of exhaustion rates as it can

empty 2-3 m3 of sludge in 2 to 3 hours (Ideas-at-Work, 2007). Mikhael et al. (2014)
reported Gulper flow rates of 30 litres (0.03 m3) per minute and technology is relatively
easy to manufacture and maintain.

However, the Gulper becomes difficult to operate with heavy sludge, often requiring two
operators to lift the contents of the riser tube. This highlights ergonomic limitations with
the current use of arm muscles to operate the existing Gulper technology. This research
sought modification on Gulper technology to improve operator ergonomics to enable one
operator empty a pit latrines (instead of two operators). According to Practical Action
Nepal (2010), leg muscles are stronger than arm muscles. Hence using leg muscles can
potentially improve user ergonomics of Gulper technology compared to using arm
muscles.

Furthermore, pedal modification of Gulper pump with bicycle parts is feasible because
they are locally available within developing countries. According to Sharpe (2010), the
bicycle is almost unique among human-powered machines in that it uses human muscles
in a nearly optimal fashion and is useful for any number of purposes including transport
of people and goods, corn shelling and water pumping. Bicycles are found around the
world, with over 100 million bicycles being produced each year (Sharpe, 2010) and an
estimated total of over a billion bikes existing across the world. This means that spare
parts and expertise for repairs will be readily available anywhere in the world.

34
The viability of using bicycle parts and pedal powered transfer mechanism was aptly
demonstrated through the work of Sharpe (2010) in the development of People Powered
Pool Pump (Figure, 2.11). The technology was developed by Sharpe (2010) for emptying
pit latrines within slums of Dar es Salaam. The design comprised of global cycle
solutions adapter, corn Sheller for power transmission and a vacuum pump (5mm air
hose) at a cost of USD$60 with total cost of at USD$200. As such similar modification on
Gulper inspired by the novel concept of the People Powered Pool Pump (P-Quad)
developed by Sharpe (2010) for sludge extraction can potentially be more effective than
use of arm muscles as currently practiced with Gulper pump technology.

Additionally, the validation of the design concept for pedal power modification on Gulper
technology was undertaken basing on theoretical engineering calculations. As such
several properties of the operating environment had to be considered based on available
reference global case studies reviewed. For the calculations, density of sludge was
determined to be 1001Kgm-3 (mean sludge values as obtained by Radford and Sudgen,
2014). Viscosity of fresh feaces was 2.2 X 10-3 Nsm-2 at shear rates of 0.2 to 21 litres per
second (Rogers, 2013).

Basing on above parameters as determined from reviewed literature, the force required to
operate the Gulper using the human powered piston design was determined. It is assumed
that there is no outlet so that a full 2 meters of sludge may be sucked up into the tube.
Measurements of the Gulper pump available at Mzuzu University showed an inside
diameter of roughly 9 centimeters and a piston pull height of 0.5 meters. Additionally,
upon trialing the time necessary to make one upward stroke was approximately
3.85seconds. Assuming the two forces acting on the piston included the weight of the
mass inside the pipe as well as the force due to the pressure created over the cross
sectional area of the pipe. Equation 1 for the force required was determined to be as
follows:

(1)

35
Calculating the mass of the material inside the pipe and plugging in to find weight:

After finding the weight, then calculated the force due to the pressure differential. By
calculating the Reynoldss number and then the head loss, the Bernoulli equation was
then used to find the pressure difference. The calculations for the Reynolds number was
done using Equation 2 below:

(2)

Where V is the velocity of the material and D is the diameter of the pipe. Since the
velocity is just the displacement of the piston divided by the time, then used 0.5 meters
and divided it by 4 seconds to get a velocity of 0.13 meters/second. It was determined the
Reynolds number to be 5323.5 and therefore had to look up the friction factor using a
Moody Chart. The calculations for the Reynolds number are detailed below:

Calculating the velocity, Reynoldss number:

36
Using Moody chart to find the friction factor. Friction factor is determined to be
approximately 0.027.

Since the Gulper uses plastic PVC, the relative roughness is assumed to be 0 and that the
pipe is considered to be smooth. The friction factor was thus determined to be
approximately 0.027 using the Moody chart. Subsequently, we calculated the head loss
using Equation 3 found below:

(3)

37
Where f is the friction factor and l is the length of the tube. The head loss was calculated
to be 5.168 x 10-4meters. The calculations for head loss can be seen below:

After finding head loss, a modified Bernoulli equation was used to determine the pressure
difference. To derive the modified Bernoulli equations Equation 4 shows the modified
Bernoulli equation that was used:

(4)

Since there is only one inlet in this device and the cross sectional area remains constant, it
was thus determined that V 2 = V 1 and canceled out both velocity terms on each side of
the equation. Additionally, since z 1 is on the reference plane hence was equal to 0.
Finally, because the work that is being done is considered boundary work, the head
supply h S was equal to 0 as well. The process to derive the simplified equation was as
follows:

38
The simplified equation from the above assumptions is shown in Equation 5 below.

(5)

Using Equation 5, the calculated pressure difference was found to be 19.645 kPa. This
calculation is detailed below

Since both forces are going towards one direction (downwards), we will ignore the
negative sign and add the forces together.

Multiplying the pressure difference by the cross sectional area gave a force of 124.94
Newtons. Adding both the force due to the weight and the pressure differential, the force
required was determined to be 249.92 Newtons. As such, calculations were then
undertaken on the work and power required using Equations 6 and 7

(6)

39
 (7)

Multiplying the force required by the 0.5 meter piston pull height gave a value of roughly
124.96 Joules. Finally, determined the power required by dividing the work by the
assumed upward stroke time of 3.85 seconds which gave power required to be 32.46
Watts. According to Sharpe (2010) a grown can easily output 100W for an hour.
Comparatively, according to Floeter et al. (2015) stated that a person could produce 180
Watts by rowing and 160 Watts by pedaling (personal communication, October 2015).
These findings are significant because it confirms that several different power
transmissions are capable of operating the Gulper effectively and efficiently.

Similarly, the treadle pump has successfully adapted such power transmission mechanism
of using leg muscles through foot operation to pump water for irrigation throughout
Malawi. Therefore, as a novel approach, this research used two existing technologies
available in Malawi namely sludge Gulper and treadle pump to leverage potential for
integrating power transmission mechanism for a more effective pit latrine emptying
technology for Peri urban, Mzuzu.

Therefore, to guide the power transmission modification, a design criteria basing on

literature and theoretical design calculations was devised for the pedal powered Gulper
device as an option in peri urban Mzuzu, included the following:

Materials and spare parts of the technology developed must be locally available

Extraction time of FS should be within 1 to 2 hours

Health risks for operator and serviced household should be lower than those of
manual pit emptying
40
 Portable (less than 50 kilograms)

Ability to pump FS from a depth of 1.5 m

Effectively remove trash in the pit latrines

Simplicity of operation (requiring no formal education)

Cost of pit emptying technology should be less than U.S. $200

41
 CHAPTER THREE. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter details methods and techniques used in the research investigation for design,
development and testing of pit emptying technology in peri urban Mzuzu, Malawi. It
covers the research design, contextual setting of study area, data collection instruments,
data analysis and ethical considerations.

3.2 Study location

3.2.1 Research study location

The study was conducted within Luwinga ward and specifically at Area 1B (Figure 3.1)
within Mzuzu city limits. Area 1B is a peri urban unplanned residential settlement
established in 1995 (Mzuzu City Council, 2013). The study area has a population of 319
households (Mzuzu City Council, 2015) and is located 3 km from Mzuzu Central
Hospital and Mzuzu University (Holm et al. 2016).

Area 1B is characterized by high density living as up to 10 households are found within

50 m2 (Mzuzu City Council, 2013; UN-HABITAT, 2011). Therefore, space is limited to
safely abandon the existing full pit latrine in Area 1B due to space constraints and lack of
effective pit emptying technological options. The continued use of full pit latrines causes
excreta to overflow hence can cause spread of faecal oral related diseases to residents of
Area 1B. Diarrhoeal diseases in Malawi account for approximately 3,000 deaths of
children under five dying annually (WHO, 2014).

42
Figure 3.1: Overview of Mzuzu City and Aerial view of Area I B demarcated with yellow boarder Source:
Overview map of Mzuzu and Aerial Map of Area 1B. (2015). Revenue mobilization Program (REMOP),
Planning and estates department. Mzuzu City Council, Malawi

3.3 Research design

The design process and field testing of the developed pit emptying technology on actual
pit latrines in peri urban Mzuzu was undertaken from February 2014 to December 2015.
The practical creative research approach was used to undertake the research investigation.
Goddard and Melville (2001:8) define practical creative research approach as the design
of physical things and development of real world processes. Modification of the pedal
powered Gulper technology falls under physical inventions. The data collected primarily
comprised of quantitative data based on the developed pump performance.

43
3.4 Research study sampling method and sample size

Purposive sampling was used to select 30 lined household pit latrines for testing of a
developed modified Gulper technology in Area 1B. The technique was applied as
follows: 1) identify a household with a pit latrine in Area 1B, 2) request their permission
to participate in the study, 3) the household owner was asked if their pit was lined or
unlined, 4) physical verification was undertaken of the latrine superstructure and view of
the substructure through the sanitation hole to verify safe conditions for the project. This
process was followed for each pit latrine sampled in the study area up until the designated
quota of lined pit latrines was reached.

The method was chosen because pit latrines sludge characteristics vary despite being
within the same city, area or between adjacent households (Niwagamba et al. 2014).
Therefore, the inherent variability due to user practices such as diet anal cleansing
material as observed by Still and Foxon (2012) assures variability in sampled pit latrines
within Area 1B. Though this approach made an attempt to limit this variability due to the
limited geographical study area. Unlined pits can potentially collapse when emptied in
unstable ground (Boot, 2007), hence were not targeted in this study.

3.5 Research study inclusion and exclusion criteria of pit latrines

Latrine selection in Area 1B, was based on inclusion and exclusion criteria of potential pit
latrine collapse, including costs and safety violations. Detailed criteria are provided in
Figure, 3.2.

44
 Figure 3.2: Inclusion and exclusion Criteria of pit latrines (adapted from WATSAN, 2013)

3.6 Research materials

Equipment for the study comprised of pit emptying pumps: the Gulper, Pressure Washer
and Diaphragm Sludge Pump, Extraction Auger (Excrevator) and the newly modified
treadle pump and pedal powered Gulper modification for pit emptying. Other materials
including items to assure health and safety risks for serviced household and developed
pump operator were excluded. Remaining items were used to support data collection and
testing of developed pit latrine emptying technology. Table 3.1 lists the research
materials.

45
 Table 3.1: Research materials

Purpose Item Quantity

Practical learning Gulper pump 1
Diaphragm Sludge Pump 1
Extraction Auger 1
Developed Pump Treadle pump modification 3
Gulper pump modification 1
Healthy and Safety Disposable Face masks 4 packets (20 Pieces each)
JIK (Sodium hypochlorite) 2.5 Litres
Hand sprayer 8.5 Litres capacity
Work suits 5
Heavy duty elbow gloves 4 pairs
Cleaning brushes 2
Disposable gloves 2 packets (100 each)
Water containers 2 (20 Litres each)
Black polythene plastic sheet I roll (20 meters)
Bag of lime 3 bags (25 kilograms each)
Shovels 1
Hoes 1
Safety rope 10 meters (m)
Detergent powder 3 packets (1 kilogram each)
Vim (cleaning detergent) 1 (500 grams)
Deworming drugs 20 (2 per person) upon
(Albendazole) completion of data collection
Data Collection Measuring tape 1 (5 meters)
Stop watch 1
Removal of trash Manual trash removal tools 2 (2 meters length)
during pit latrine
testing
Sludge storage Plastic buckets with cover lid on 2 (90 Litres each)
containers top

46
3.7 Design and development process of pit emptying technology

Design process of development of pit emptying technology is detailed in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Design and development process of pit emptying technology

3.7 Research data collection instruments

3.7.1 Secondary data

Secondary data was obtained from peer reviewed journals, books, research reports,
institutional reports, national government publications, and grey literature. The literature
survey focused on understanding the problem context for development of conceptual
framework underpinning the study.

3.7.2 Primary quantitative data

Quantitative data was obtained through testing of developed pit latrine emptying
technology at each phase was done on mud slurry paste mixture comprising of clay soil
10 litres (0.01m3), water 5 litres (0.05 m3) put in bucket of 20 litres (0.02 m3). The bucket

47
was then placed in a hand dug pit 1m below ground surface. This was done to guide
initial performance parameters which enabled evaluation of each design of pit emptying
technology development phase against established design criteria. Performance
parameters included clogging, user ergonomics, discharge, and challenges was collected
on data collection sheets (Appendix, 2). The evaluations on mud slurry tests guided
modification efforts of emptying technology development before actual test on pit
latrines. The procedure for actual pit latrine testing in Area 1B was as follows:

Step 1: Briefing the testing team on health and safety issues

Step 2: Administering the consent form for each household owner/occupant of the
sampled latrines

Step 3: Inspecting latrine structure for cracks

Step 4: Measuring the latrine superstructure (door, squat/key hole, base slab)

Step 5: Removing trash with a manual hook. Two types of manual hooks were used, one
shaped as a claw (three U-shaped hooks) and the other a sweeping brush with 6-inch
nails. Both had a maximum height of 2 m and a 40-cm handle. The volume of trash
removed per pit was measured using a 20-L (0.02 m3) pail.

Step 6: Fluidizing sludge in the pit latrines using water. Fluidization was performed in
increments of 0.02 m3 by volume and using manual agitation with a trash removal hook to
improve consistency.

Step 7: Measure flow rates of the modified pedal powered Gulper was done by filling a
20-L pail until the maximum Gulper length of 1.5 m was reached. Pump performance
parameters focused upon included time taken for use of each tool, head, and discharge
rate, head, extraction time which was then recorded on data collection sheets (Appendix,
3).

Step 8: Cleaning test site around pit latrine

Step 9: Disposing FS at city sludge ponds

Step 10: Cleaning and sanitizing pit emptying equipment

48
3.8 Research data management and analysis methods

The data for the study was manually checked for omissions before entry onto Excel
(2013). Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 16.0. Graphical presentations were developed for data presentation and
descriptive statistics used to establish validity and reliability of data sets.

3.9 Research ethical considerations

Prior to commencement of the research, the study received ethical clearance (Appendix,
5) from the National Commission for Science and Technology (NCST) on 12th
November, 2014. Mzuzu City Council Public Health Director was briefed on the research
study to ensure compliance to Mzuzu City by laws. Permission for emptying pit latrines
was sought from household owner prior to testing through administering of consent form
(Appendix, 1). A health and safety plan (Appendix, 4) guided field activities.

3.10 Research dissemination strategy for study findings

The study findings were disseminated through conference papers and journal publication
to contribute to the body of existing knowledge.

Presentation title: Investigation on pit emptying Technology for Peri urban

Mzuzu, Malawi. Unpublished. Abstract and Prototype Development progress
presented (oral) at Faecal Sludge Management Conference (FSM) 3 in Hanoi,
Vietnam (19-23 January 2015). Conference organizers: International Water
Association (IWA). Presentation and Video Available on SuSanA Forum.

Presentation title: A Review of Existing and New Technological Solutions for Pit
Emptying in Peri urban Mzuzu, Malawi. Unpublished Full Paper. Oral
Presentation at Water Services Association of Malawi (WASAMA) conference
held at Grand Palace Hotel, Mzuzu, Malawi (20-21 March, 2015).

49
 Presentation title: Adventures of designing a pit emptying technology: An
evolving process. Unpublished full paper. Oral Presentation at WaterNet 16TH
Symposium 2015, held at Le Meridien lle Maurice Hotel, Pointe Aux Piments,
Mauritius (28-30 October 2015).

Research paper Title: Designing local solutions for pit emptying in low-income
urban settlements (Malawi). Unpublished full paper. Submitted for publication in
the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth in May 2016.

Research paper Title: What are the solutions to trash in full pit latrines for Peri
urban Mzuzu, Malawi? A discussion on social and technical solutions. Briefing
paper submitted (in February 2016) for presentation at 39Th WEDC International
Conference, Kumasi, in Ghana, July 2016.

50
 CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter comprises of results for phases of design and development of pit emptying
technology and testing of modified pedal powered Gulper pump on actual pit latrines at
Area 1B.

4.2 Conceptual design

The conceptual design phase treadle pump medication for pit emptying technology was
devised with the use of bicycle parts in place of treadles as depicted in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Diagram of the modified treadle pump for pit emptying (Authors Design)

51
4.3 Design and development phases

Four technology development phases were undertaken with initial modification on treadle
pump technology in Phases I, II and III and lessons drawn from these preceding phases
used in Phase IV for treadle pump modification as highlighted in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Phase I half cycle motion, Phase II full cycle motion, Phase III of treadle operation and phase
IV of pedal Gulper modification.

4.4 Material list for technology development phases

The material list and cost for Phases I, II, III and IV of the technology development are
depicted in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. Phases I, II and IV used same materials such as
bicycle parts to ensure cost effectiveness while phase III only used conventional treadle
pump technology.

52
 Table 4.1: Phase I material list

Item Quantity Unit Cost (MK) Cost (MK)

Gear 1 800 800
Pin 1 200 200
Bearings 22 50
Grease 1 50 50
Crank 1 1500 1500
Bicycle chain 1 850 850
Quarter pin 2 50 100
Pedals 2 250 500
Bolts (3cm) 6 150 900
Lubricant oil 1 (50 milliliters) 50 50
Bicycle hub 1 (Second Hand) 300 300
Base frame 1 2700 2700
Bicycle seat 1 2250 250
Pin holder 1 350 350
Treadle pump cylinders 2 1000 2000
Pulley 1 800 800
Handles 2 850 1700
Suction hose 1 12000 12000
Flap valve 1 1500 1500
Delivery hose 1 12000 12000
Rope 1 1800 1800
Labour charge 40 hours 10,000
Total MK50,500

53
 Table 4.2: Phase II material list

Item Quantity Unit Cost (MK) Cost (MK)

Gear 1 800 800
Pin 1 200 200
Grease 1 100 100
Crank set 1 1500 1500
Motorbike chain 1 3000 3000
Quarter Pin 2 50 100
Pedals 2 250 500
Bolts 6 150 900
Lubricant oil 1 (50 milliliters) 50 50
Bicycle Hub 1 (Second Hand) 300 300
Base Frame 1 2300 2300
Flywheel 1 500 500
Bicycle Seat 1 2250 250
Pin holder 1 350 350
Treadle pump cylinders 2 1000 2000
Pulley 1 800 800
Handles 2 850 1700
Suction hose 1 12000 12000
Flap Valve 1 1500 1500
Delivery hose 1 12000 12000
Rope 1 1800 1800
Metal frame holding crank 1 2000 2000
Labour Charge 40 hours 20,000
Total MK64,650

Note: Phase II used some materials from Phase I

54
 Table 4.3: Phase III material list

Item Quantity Unit Cost (MK) Cost (MK)

Super money maker treadle 1 98500 98500
pump
Welding rods 10 200 2000
Welding pump base 5000
Labour Charge 20 hours 2,000
Total MK107,500

Table 4.4: Phase IV material list

Item Quantity Unit Cost (MK) Cost (MK)

Motorbike crank set 2 5000 10000
Flywheel 1 20000 20000
Mild steel 54000
Bolts 17 9000
Metal Base frame 1 45000
Labor charge 80 hours 106,000
Total MK244,000

Note: Phase IV used some materials from Phase I and Phase II

55
4.5 Design schematic diagrams and dimensions of developed pit emptying technology phases

The design schematic for each technology development phase (I, II, III and IV) of treadle
pump onto pedal powered Gulper technology are detailed in figures 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6.

Figure 4.3: Design schematic of phase I treadle pump modification

Figure 4.4: Design schematic of phase II treadle pump modification

56
 Figure 4.5: Design schematic of phase III treadle pump modification

Figure 4.6: Design schematic of phase IV pedal powered Gulper modification

57
4.6 Pros and cons of developed pit latrine emptying technology phases

The pros and cons for each technology development phase (I, II, III and IV) are
highlighted in Table 4.5

Table 4.5: Pros and cons of developed pit latrine emptying technology phases

Phases Pros Cons

Phase I Low cost Requires priming with water

Reduces contact with faecal sludge Becomes clogged with mud slurry paste

Tedious to operates half cycle motions

with legs

Due to weight (59 kg), cannot easily be

carried to worksite

Phase II Low cost Requires priming

Reduces contact with faecal sludge during
pumping
Full cycle motions easy to operate than half cycle
motion using legs
Becomes clogged with mud slurry paste
Due to weight (64kg), cannot easily be
carried to worksite

Phase Low cost Requires priming

III
Reduces potential contact during pumping Mud slurry paste deposited in suction and
discharge hose
Conventional treadle operation easy to operate
Becomes clogged with mud slurry paste
Portable (14kgs) to carry to work site

Phase Able to pump out mud slurry without clogging Higher cost than preceding phases
IV
Full cycle motion easy to operate using leg Does not eliminate contact during
muscles pumping

Portable (35kgs) to carry to work site Access limited to sanitation key hole of
100mm

58
4.7 Overview of testing of developed pit emptying technology in area 1B

A total of 30 lined pit latrines were sampled in the study. Notably, one pit out of 30
sampled lined pit latrines was blocked by a wall preventing direct access to sanitation
keyhole. Secondly, another pit out of the 30 sampled was shallow at less than 1 m deep
disenabling connection with the pedal powered transmission mechanism and Gulper of
maximum depth reach of 1.5m. Five pits (17%) out of 30 were successfully emptied, 10
pits (33%) out of 30 were full of trash and 13 pits (44 percent) of the 30 sampled were
beyond Gulper length of 1.5 m.

Table 4.6 details dimensions of the 5 pits emptied in Area 1B. Access to pit latrines in
Area 1B with the modified pedal powered Gulper modification was through the latrine
access door of superstructure and sanitation keyhole. The pits emptied dimensions ably
accommodated the Gulper pump maximum Gulper length of 1.5 m and riser pipe of
100mm. Sanitation hole sizes of 5 pits emptied were all above 100mm hence Gulper
insertion was not a problem. The treadle powered transfer mechanism front base frame is
270 mm wide and length 900 mm hence ably accessed the door width ranging between
52cm (520mm) by 175cm (1750mm) of the 5 pits emptied. Pit 5 had no permanent
superstructure and was covered in boxes and black polythene bags hence door dimension
were not determined.

Table 4.6 Dimensions of 5 successfully emptied pit latrines

Pit Pit Slab Sanitation hole Door Dimensions (cm)

# Dimensions (cm) dimensions (cm)
1 91 by 175 32 by 16 61 by 164
2 115 by 92 18 by 16 60.5 by 171
3 125 by 90 29 diameter (round) 52 by 150
4 136 by 110 20 by 20 67 by 175
5 166 by 145 16 by 20 Had temporary superstructure (made of
black polythene bags and cardboard
cartons)

59
However, the developed treadle powered transfer mechanism was not able to access two
pit latrines due to a wall that blocked direct access to sanitation keyhole and another pit
latrine was shallow (less than 1 m deep). Therefore, when the Gulper was inserted, about
a 1m extension of the Gulper riser pipe and handle at the top were above the sanitation
hole. At such a height, it was not possible to attach the handle with the pedal powered
transfer mechanism as envisioned.

Figure 4.7 shows the volume trash fished from the pits (n=17) ranged from 0.02 m3 to
0.12 m3 with a mean of 0.058 m3 and a standard deviation of 0.03. Two of the latrines
where trash was removed have been reported as beyond Gulper length after trash was
removed. Trash found in pit latrines varied from newspapers, rags, maize cobs, grass,
bricks, glass, bottles, diapers, menstrual pads, condoms and other items not determined as
mixed with faecal sludge.

Figure 4.7: Trash in pit latrine in Area 1B (5 pit latrines emptied highlighted in black colour)

60
Out of the 5 pits emptied, pit 3 had the largest amount of trash volume of 0.08 m while pit
2 and 4 were joint lowest of the 5 pits successfully emptied at 0.2 m3. Trend line showed
an increasing amount of trash from pit emptied to those not successfully emptied showing
trash has an impact of technology effectiveness to empty pit latrines dependent on amount
of trash present in pit latrines.

Table 4.7 depicts the mean time by task for the pit emptying operation using the pedal
powered Gulper technology. The time of 12 3 min for the pumping was the shortest of
all tasks performed using the modified pedal powered Gulper. The trash removal task
with a mean time of 21 11 min took the longest compared to the other pit emptying
operation tasks.

Table 4.7: Extraction times for 5 successfully emptied pits in Area 1B

Pit 1 Pit 2 Pit 3 Pit 4 Pit 5 Mean STD DEV

(minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes)
Assemble 15 10 20 15 20 16 4
Trash 20 10 40 20 15 21 11
removal
Fluidization 10 10 40 10 10 16 13
Extraction 10 15 10 10 15 12 2.7
Unclog 15 10 45 0 10 16 17
Disassemble 20 10 25 15 15 17 5
Cleanup 15 15 20 20 15 17 2
Total Time 105 80 200 90 100 115 48
Hours 1.45 1.2 3.2 1.3 1.4

The above observation is highlighted in pit 3 which took the longest time of 200 minutes
(3.2 hours) due to time taken to remove trash (40 minutes) which in turn caused frequent
clogging of the inlet screen at the bottom of the Gulper riser pipe inserted in the latrine
sanitation keyhole. Hence total elapsed extraction time during testing with pedal powered
Gulper design was beyond the design criteria of 2 hour extraction time for emptying pit 3.
The other 4 pits tested fall within desired 2 hours extraction time as they had less trash.

61
The mean total elapsed time was 115 minutes with standard deviation of 48. Therefore,
presence of trash impedes progress of pit emptying process and negates the possibility of
undertaking two pits a day with the technology.

To prevent further clogging of the preventative screen additional fishing was done to
remove non faecal material and sizes of screen at the bottom of the Gulper riser pipe was
reduced from 5 cm by 6cm to 2 cm by 4 cm to reduce entry of non faecal material.

Figure 4.8 shows that the volume of water used for the fluidization prior to sludge
pumping ranged from 0.04 to 0.06 m3. The mean volume of water used for the
fluidization of fecal sludge was 0.052 0.010 m3.

Figure 4.8: Volume of water used for fluidization in pit emptying technology testing in Area 1B

62
Addition of water for in-situ fluidization to facilitate removal of trash and improve
consistency of pit sludge contents before pumping operations. Mixing was done through
the use of manual hooks.

Figure 4.9 shows that the mean flow rate of the pedal powered Gulper design was
0.00058 m3 with a standard deviation of 0.00013 for five pit latrines successfully tested in
area 1B.

Figure 4.9: Flow rates of 5 pit latrines emptied within Area 1B (Error bars represent standard deviation)

The differences in mean flow rates were not significant (p value of 0.05). On each pit
several tests were undertaken to gauge flow rates of the pedal powered Gulper
modification up until maximum depth of 1.5 m.

63
 CHAPTER FIVE. DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the design and development process of developed pit emptying
technology option and its testing on actual pit latrines in Area 1B within peri urban
Mzuzu.

5.2 Treadle Pump Modification

5.2.1 Phase 1

The first phase design was based on conceptual design (Figure 4.1) sketch to guide
modification of treadle pump technology. Schematic diagram of phase 1 design is
presented in Figure 4.3 and material list detailed in Table 4.1.

The first phase design (Figure 4.2) involved the use of a bicycle chain (1 cm thickness) to
drive the pulley. This chain was selected due to the durability and reliability of a chain
compared to a rope. Bicycle pedals replaced the wooden treadles in the treadle pump to
enable a continuous cycle of motion. A bicycle crank set was added to enable rotation at
half cycle motion upon the application of force to the pedals. A bicycle hub was attached
at the crank to transfer the pedal motion to the chain.

Lubricant oil (engine oil #40) was used to ease the motion of the flap handle in the
cylinders. A bicycle seat and handles were added to enable foot operation of the pump
over longer periods of time. The conceptual design was locally fabricated by Mussa
welders (a small-scale roadside welder) at a cost of U.S. $84. The cost of fabrication was
within the design criteria of being under U.S. $200.

The observed cons and pros of phase I design is detailed in Table 4.5. Pumping tests on
the mud slurry paste using the phase I modified treadle pump indicated that the pump was
64
unable to lift a mud slurry paste from a 1 m hand dug pit and provided negligible flow
rates. Instead, the mud was deposited in the lining of the suction hose and clogged the
valves. The inability to maintain a vacuum limited suction, resulting in low flow rates,
deposition in the suction hose, and subsequent clogging. In addition, the bicycle chain
broke several times during the trials.

The treadle pump technology operated on a vacuum based system, which required
priming with water to enable the suction. It proved difficult to maintain a vacuum, as
leakages in the system caused a frequent loss of suction. The half cycle leg motion made
operation tedious and ineffective. The weight of the Phase I design was 59 kg, above the
50-kg weight established in the design criteria to enable easy manual transportation to the
work site. Based on the above observations, the research team carried out a redesign to
enable full cycle crank motion.

5.2.2 Phase II

The second phase of treadle pump modification (Figure 4.2) was fabricated by Kelju
motors to incorporate a full cycle motion as done in riding bicycle. Schematic diagram of
phase II design is presented in Figure 4.4 and material list detailed in Table 4.2.

The fabrication shop used in Phase I struggled with a lack of engineering expertise to
implement the envisioned full cycle motion design modification. As such, Phase II of the
treadle pump was fabricated by Kelju Motors. As opposed to a small-scale roadside
welder, Kelju Motors focused on motor vehicle repairs. These welders approached the
task as a challenge. However, the shop still had a lack of fabrication equipment, such as a
grinder, requiring their renting equipment from fellow welders. This renting resulted in
schedule delays. Ultimately, however, Kelju Motors was able to, as envisioned,
incorporate a full cycle pedaling motion, similar to that of riding a bicycle. Modifications
undertaken also included the replacement of the bicycle chain with a motorcycle chain.

Pros and cons of phase II treadle pump design modification are detailed in Table 4.5.
Tests on the mud slurry were conducted, but again, leakage of the mud slurry within the
65
system prevented the accurate determination of flow rates. The full cycle pedal motion
with leg power proved to be easier to operate than the half cycle motion in the Phase I
design. However, due to the increased load, the mud pumped out during pedaling posed a
challenge.

The weight of the Phase II at 64 kg, was higher than that of Phase I, primarily due to the
addition of parts, such as the motorbike chain. Based on the above observations, the
research team undertook a redesign, as follows: 1) add a flywheel to assist with pumping
power and 2) reassess the conventional treadle operation from water to sludge.

5.2.3 Phase III

Phase III (Figure 4.2) explored conventional treadle pump operation using a Super Money
Maker treadle pump. The schematic diagram of phase III design is detailed in Figure 4.5
and material list description provided in Table 4.3. Changes to the design were again
fabricated by Kelju Motors, also used in Phase II.

Pros and cons of phase III are detailed in Table 4.5. The workmanship of the
implemented design changes was of substandard quality with major leakage from the base
container. This leakage was unacceptable based on the design criteria of reducing the
health risks via FS exposure for the operator and the serviced household. The challenges
observed in this phase were similar to those of Phase I and II. The vacuum based
technology of the treadle pump and valves were designed for pumping water, rather than
denser fluids, and the tests on clay mud slurry, used to simulate fecal sludge, failed.
Based on the above observations, the three phases of the treadle pump modification were
reviewed. Phase II, with the full cycle motion, showed the most potential to reduce the
effort exerted during operation, especially if a flywheel could be added. Hence, the full
cycle option was moved forward to Phase IV.

66
5.2.4 Phase IV

Phase IV (Figure 4.2) explored the pedal powered Gulper modification with full cycle
operation and a flywheel. The schematic diagram of phase IV design is shown in Figure
4.6 and details of materials used for fabrication depicted in Table 4.4. In this phase, the
design was fabricated using the most capable engineering fabricators in Mzuzu, Mainga
Engineering. Mainga Engineering is located in an industrial area of Mzuzu City near the
local tobacco trading floor, the Coca-Cola bottling company, and local coffee distributors,
all high-end clients. Notably, the shop had such equipment as grinders, as well as
engineering expertise, providing greater options to execute the needed design
modifications.

The cost of materials and fabrication was U.S. $406, which was above the cost of U.S.
$200 established in the design criteria. Mainga Engineerings higher capacity workshop
with qualified engineers involved higher labor charges than the other three phases.
However, the full cycle motion was successfully undertaken, with the addition of the
flywheel enabling smooth leg operation of the pedal powered Gulper pump.

5.3 Testing of pit emptying Technology

During testing of the modified pedal powered Gulper technology, access to the sampled
pit latrines in the study area (Table 4.6) was through the squat/keyhole in the floor of the
pit latrine. In one of 30 cases, the latrine had a blind wall in the front, which prevented
access for emptying. In the absence of additional modifications, the technology required
direct access to the squat/key. This finding confirms observation made by WRC (2015)
on lack of operation and maintenance measures for pit latrines hence access to FS in
many developing countries is through the squat/key hole unlike VIP latrines with back
end access point for emptying as done South Africa.

67
Furthermore, trash was found in all of the sampled pit latrines (Figure 4.7) with a mean
volume of 0.06 m3. The trash included stones, rags, sanitary pads, condoms, bricks and
glass. A similar concern regarding the role of trash in the filling rate of pit latrines was
also documented in South Africa by Brouckaert et al. (2013). Presence of trash
complicates sludge characteristics and contributes to variability as observed by WRC
(2015), Niwagamba et al. (2014); Still and Foxon (2012), Boot, (2007). After removing
the trash, water was added (Figure 4.8) to fluidize the FS to improve the pumping flow
rate. Yet still, during the field tests, trash was observed to clog the inlet of the Phase IV
modified pedal powered Gulper technology. This clogging required unclogging by hand
due to the absence of a reversing mechanism, increasing the pit emptying operation time
(Table 4.7) and causing the emptying process to be messier.

The flow rates for the pedal powered Gulper design (Figure 4.9) on 5 successfully tested
pit latrines showed a mean flow rate of 0.00058 m3. This flow rate was above the
conventional operation of the arm powered sludge Gulper of 0.0005 m3 per second, as
reported by Mikhael et al. (2014). The design requires further review to optimize the
power transmission mechanism to be able to attain higher pumping rates.

68
 CHAPTER SIX. CONCLUSION

6.1 Conclusion

This study has demonstrated through a four-phase technology development process, that a
modified pedal powered Gulper technology is feasible with the use of locally available
materials and can be used to remove FS from pit latrines in peri urban Mzuzu. The
current design is capable of servicing pit latrines, exhibiting access door dimensions of 30
cm wide by 150 cm high and direct access to the squat hole with a minimum size of 10
cm. The technology could lift fecal sludge from a 1.5 m depth with flow rates of 0.00058
m3 per second. A typical pit latrine volume of 1 to 4 m3 could be emptied within 1 to 2
hours. This speed is attainable only if the trash content is low. Health risks for the
operator and serviced household was reduced compared to manual pit emptying, and the
system was simple to operate (requiring no formal education).

However, the final system was heavier than planned, which may reduce portability. It was
above the cost criteria due to use of higher capacity fabricators within Mzuzu than
preceding technology phases. As such the developed pedal powered Gulper is not yet as
optimized as other globally available pit latrine emptying technology options. Hence
further modifications are recommended based on current design limitations.

6.2 Recommendations

Further refinements are needed to optimize the developed pit latrine emptying technology
(Phase IV, pedal Gulper modification) as follows:

Review of the developed pedal powered Gulper technology design to maximize

ergonomics, yielding higher pumping rates and optimizing the power transfer

Design modification to enable pumping outside the latrine with the pedal powered
mechanism to ease operation

69
 Accommodation of pit latrines with small doors

The addition of an extended discharge hose, adding 1 to 2 m to the length,

enabling direct emptying into large containers may allow continuous pumping
operations

Availability of higher capacity fabricators, such as Mainga Engineering, in other

areas of Malawi

Similar to many semi-mechanized and mechanized pit emptying technologies, the

presence of trash poses a serious challenge to pedal powered Gulper technology.
Therefore, social and technical solutions to prevent trash from being placed in pit
latrines are needed to enable the pedal powered Gulper modification and other pit
emptying technologies to pump out FS from pit latrines effectively.

6.3 Areas of further research

Since the study was conducted at a smaller scale, it is suggested that the same study could
be replicated at a larger scale to cater for the design, development and testing of pit latrine
technologies on both lined and unlined pit latrines in the informal urban settlements in
Mzuzu and other cities in Malawi. Furthermore, additional studies could be undertaken to
assess potential for use of mechanized motor such for motorbikes with variations in cycle
rate as drive mechanism for the pedal powered Gulper pump and transportation of
extracted sludge to designated transfer stations and sludge ponds within Malawi.

70
References

Bakare, F, B. (2014) Scientific and Management support for ventilated improved pit
latrine (VIP) sludge content. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Kwazulu
Natal.
Bhagwan, J.N., Still, D., Buckley, C. & Foxon. K, (2008) Challenges with Up- scaling
Dry Sanitation Technologies. IWA Conference: Vienna
Boesch, A. & Schertenleib, R. (1985). Emptying onsite excreta disposal system Field
Tests with Mechanized Equipment in Gaborone (Botswana). International
Reference Centre for Waste Disposal (IRCWD). (IRCWD report; no. 03/85).
Duebendorf, Switzerland: International Reference Centre for Waste Disposal.
Boot, N. (2007) Technical Brief: Pit Emptying Systems. Warwickshire: Practical Action,
The Schumacher Center for Technology and Development.
Brouckaert, C.J., Foxon, K.M. & Wood, K. (2013) Modelling the filling rate of Pit
Latrines. Water SA Vol.39
Buckley, C., Foxon, K.M., Brouckaert, C.J., Rodda, N., Nwaneri, C., Balboni, E.,
Couderc, A. & Magagna, D. (2008) Scientific Support for Design and Operation
of Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines and the Efficacy of Pit Latrine Additives.
University of KwaZulu-Natal. Pollution Research Group, School of Chemical
Engineering. Gezina: Water Research Commission.
Building Partnerships for Development, (2005) Sanitation Partnerships: Dar es Salaam
Case Study. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Building Partnerships for Development.
Building Partnerships for Development. (2008) Sanitation partnerships: Dar es Salaam
case study. Available from :<http://www.bpd-aterandsanitation.org/bpd/web/d/doc
117.pdf?statsHandlerDone=1 [ > Accessed 15 May, 2014]
Coe, M. (2010) Design, Build and Test of a Semi Mechanized Pit Latrine Emptying
System for the Developing World. M.Sc. Thesis in Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, Queen Library.
Eales, K. (2005) Bringing pit emptying out of the darkness: a Comparison of approaches
in Durban, South Africa, and Kibera, Kenya. In: BPD Water and Sanitation,
Sanitation Partnership Series: Manual Pit Emptying. BPD Water and Sanitation,
London, pp. 19.
Evans, B. (2007) Understanding the Urban Poors Vulnerabilities in Sanitation and
Water supply. Centre for Sustainable Urban Development.
71
Gjefle, K. (2011) Sanitation for all: An engine for economic growth for Urban Africa.
About time to get the shit out of town? Oslo: Sustainable Sanitation Design
Publications.
Goddard, W. & Melville, S. (2001) Research Methodology: An Introduction. Second
Ed. Juta & Co. Ltd. Durban: South Africa
Godfrey, A. (2012) Faecal Sludge Management Demonstration Project in Maxaquene A
and B, Maputo, Mozambique. Maputo: WSUP.
Hawkins, P., Blackett, I. & Hymans, C. (2013) Poor Inclusive Urban Sanitation: An
Overview. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/ the World Bank.
Holm, R., Wandschneider, P., Felsot, A. & Msilimba, G. (2016) Achieving the
sustainable development goals: a case study of the complexity of water quality
health risks in Malawi. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 2016. DOI:
10.1186/s41043-016-0057-x
http://jhpn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41043-016-0057-x
Holm, R.H., Tembo J.M. & Thole, B. (2015) Pit latrine emptying, comparative analysis
of Malawi and Zambia. African Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 9(11), pp. 783-792. DOI:10.5897/AJEST2015.1971.
IDEAS-AT-WORK. (2007) The Gulper. Available from
: < http://www.ideas-at-work.org/pdf/Gulper_Pit_Emptying_device.pdf >
[Accessed 14 June, 2014].
Kirango J. & Muller M. S. (1997). MAPET: A Service for the Collection of Latrine
Sludge from Households in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Urban Waste Series Vol. 6.
Klingel, F., Montangero, A., Kone, D. & Strauss, M. (2002) Faecal
Sludge Management in Developing Countries A Planning Manual. (1st Ed).
Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC),
Switzerland.
Linyama, Y., Mikhael, G., Machila, N. & R. Skarubowiz (2014) Tracing urban
Sanitation services through monitoring in Lusaka, Zambia. 37th WEDC
International Conference, Hanoi Vietnam.
Malawi Government, Environmental Management Act. (2010) Ministry of Environmental
Affairs. Malawi Government publication.

Malawi Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development. (2014)

72
 Pit emptying and faecal sludge management in Lilongwe and Blantyre, Malawi:
Appropriateness and financing of toilet sanitation technologies used in peri-urban
areas. Sanitation and Hygiene Applied Research for Equity (SHARE). Malawi
Government publication.

Malawi Government, Ministry of Health. (2011) Malawi Health Sector Strategic Plan

for 2011-2016: Moving towards equity and quality. Malawi Government

publication.

Malawi Government, National Environmental policy (2004) Ministry of Environmental

Affairs. Malawi. Government publication.

Malawi Government, National Sanitation Policy (2008) Ministry of Water and Irrigation.

Malawi Government publication.

Malawi Government, National Statistical Office (NSO) & ICF Macro. (2011) Malawi

Demographic and Health Survey 2010. Zomba, Malawi and Calverton, Maryland,
USA: NSO and ICF Macro.

Malawi Government, National water policy (2005). Ministry of water and Irrigation.

Malawi Government publication.

Malinga, S. (2015) Development of a low cost emptying pump in Uganda. Faecal Sludge
Management Conference (FSM) 3 in Hanoi, Vietnam (19-23 January 2015).
International Water Association (IWA).
Manda, M. A. Z. (2009) Water and sanitation in urban Malawi: Can the Millennium
Development Goals be met? A study of informal settlements in three cities. IIED,
3 Endsleigh Street London WC1H 0DD, UK.
Mikhael, G., Robbins, D.M, Ramsey, E.J & Mbgur, M. (2014) Methods and means
for collection and transport of faecal sludge. In: Strande, L., Mariska, R. &
Damir, B. eds. Faecal Sludge Management: A systems Approach for
implementation and operation. London: IWA publishing, pp. 67-96.
Montanegro. A, Kone. D. & Strauss. M (2002) Planning towards improved excreta
Management. Paper submitted to the 5th Conference on Small Water and
Wastewater Treatment Systems, Istanbul, Turkey, September 2002.
73
MSF. (2010) Public Health Engineering in Precarious Situations. Mdecins Sans
Frontires (MSF). Available from :<
http://refbooks.msf.org/msf_docs/en/public_health_en.pdf > [12 July, 2014].
Muller, M. S. & Rijnsburger, J. (1992) MAPET: A Neighborhood-based pit emptying
service with locally manufactured hand pump equipment in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania. Gouda, The Netherlands: WASTE Consultants.
Muller, M., & Rijnsburger, J. (1994) MAPET: A neighborhood based pit emptying service
with locally manufactured hand pump equipment in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Nieuwehaven, the Netherlands: WASTE.
Mzuzu City Council (2013) MZUZU City Council Urban Profile 2013-2017. Malawi

Government publication.

Mzuzu City Council, (2015) Revenue mobilization Program (REMOP). Planning and

Estates department. Malawi Government Publication

Niwagamba, B.C., Mbgure, M. & Strande, L. (2014) Faecal sludge quantification,

characterization and treatment objectives. In: Strande, L., Mariska, R. and
Damir, B. (Eds.), Faecal Sludge Management: A systems Approach for
implementation and operation. IWA publishing, pp. 19-23
ORiordan, M. (2009) WRC PROJECT 1745 Management of sludge accumulation in
VIP latrines Investigation into Methods of Pit Latrine Emptying. Durban: Partners
in Development (Pty) Ltd.
Oxfam. (2008) Manual Hand Pump (MDHP). Available from :< http://emptying.org/>
[Accessed 12 August, 2014].
Peal, A., Evans, B., Blackett, I., Hawkins, P. & Heymans, C. (2014) Faecal sludge
management: A comparative analysis of 12 cities. Journal of water, sanitation
and hygiene for development. 04.4.
Pickford, J. & Shaw, R. (1997) Technical brief no. 54: Emptying latrine pits.
PID: O'Riordan, M. (2009, April). Investigation into the Methods of Pit Latrine
Emptying.http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/O%20R
IORDAN%202009%20Investigation%20into%20Methods%20of%20Pit%20Latri
ne%20Emptying.pdf > [Accessed 12 August, 2014].
Prasad, B.A (2013) Urban Sanitation: Healthy Challenges for the Urban Poor. Research
Journal of Family, Community and Consumer Sciences Vol 1 (3), pp. 1-6.
74
Practical Action Nepal. (2010) Treadle pumps. Kathmandu. Practical Action Technical
Brief.
Radford, J.T & Fenner, R.A. (2013) Characterization and Fluidization of Synthetic Pit
latrine Sludge. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development.03.3.
Radford, J.T. & Sudgen, S. (2014) Measurements of Faecal Sludge in-situ shear
Strength. Water SA Vol.40 No.1 January 2014.
Rogers, T.W. (2013) Modification of power earth auger modification for pit latrine
extraction in developing countries. MSc. Thesis. University of North Carolina.
Rogers, T.W. (2015) The Excrevator: safe and effective pit emptying. Faecal Sludge
Management Conference (FSM) 3 in Hanoi, Vietnam (19-23 January 2015).
International Water Association (IWA).

Rogers, T.W., De Los Reyes, F.L., Bleckwith, W.J. & Boarden, R.C. (2013) Power Earth

Auger Modification for Waste Extraction from Pit Latrines. Journal of Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. (Manuscript Draft)

Rose. C, Parker, A., Jefferson, B & Cartmell, E. (2015) The Characterization of Feces
and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment
Technology. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45:17,
1827-1879, DOI:10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761
Scott R. & Reed B. (2006) Emptying pit latrines. Well Factsheet Loughborough.
University, United Kingdom.
Seal, D (2012) Identifying appropriate pit emptying technologies in Nairobi Slum. MSc.
Thesis. Cranfield University.

Sharpe, N.S. (2010) Development of a novel plan for emptying pit latrines in urban

Slums. MSc Thesis. University of Cambridge.

Still, D. & Foxon, K. (2012) Tackling the challenges of full pit latrines volume 1:
Understanding Sludge accumulation in VIPs and Strategies for Emptying Full
pits. Water Research Report No.1745/1/12.
Still, D. & Foxon, K. (2012) Tackling the challenges of full pit latrines volume II: How
fast do pit toilets fill up? A scientific understanding of sludge build up and
accumulation in pit latrines. Water Research Report No.1745/2/12.
Still, D. & Oriodian, M. (2012) Tackling the challenges of full pit latrines volume III:

75
 How fast do pit toilets fill up? A scientific understanding of sludge build up and
accumulation in pit latrines. Water Research Report No.1745/3/12.
Still, D.A. (2002) After the Pit is Full.What then? Effective Options for Pit Latrine
Management. Water Institute of Southern Africa, Biennial conference, 2002.
Durban, South Africa.
Strande, L (2014). The Global Situation. In: Strande, L., Mariska, R. & Damir, B. eds.
Faecal Sludge Management: A systems Approach for implementation and
operation. London: IWA publishing, pp. 1-14.
Strauss, M., Barrerio, W.C., Steiner, M., Mensah, A., Jeuland.M, Bolomey, S.,
Montangero.A. & Kone. D. (2003) Urban Excreta Management Situation,
Challenges and Promising Solutions. Presented at IWA Asia- Pacific Conference
Bangkok, Thailand, October 19-23, 2003.
Strauss, M., Kone, D. & Saywell, D. (2006) Proceedings of the 1st international
symposium and workshop on faecal sludge management (FSM) policy: Dakar, 9-
12 May 2006. IWA, ONAS and SANDEC.
Strauss, M., Larmie, S.S., Heinss, U. & Montangero, A. (2000) Treating Faecal Sludges
in Ponds. Water Science and Technology 42(10), pp.283290.
Sudgen, S. (2013) Importance of understanding the market when designing pit emptying
services. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Thye, Y.P. Templeton, M. R & Ali, M. (2009) Pit latrine emptying: Challenges and
solutions. Imperial College London.
Thye, Y.P. Templeton, M. R & Ali, M. (2011) A Critical Review of Technologies for Pit
Latrine Emptying in Developing Countries. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science and Technology, 41:20, pp. 1793-1819
Tucker, J. (2010) Design, Build and Test of a Semi Mechanized Pit Latrine Emptying
System for the Developing World. M.Sc. Thesis in Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering. University of Bristol, Queen Library.
UN Habitat. (2011) Malawi: Mzuzu Urban Profile. United Nations Human Settlement
Programme.
United Nations (UN). (2010) The Millennium Development Goal Report 2010. New
York: Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
United Nations (UN). (2015) Mainstreaming the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development: Interim reference Guide to UN country teams. United Nations
development Group publications.
76
van Vuuren, L. (2008) Back to basics: Research looks down the pit. The Water Wheel:
Sanitation, Health, and Hygiene Supplement 10 (13).
Waste Advisers and NL Red Cross. (2014) Testing and developing of emptying units for
emptying pit latrines and septic tanks- results on nine months of field testing in
Blantyre Malawi.
Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough. (1998) DfiD guidance
manual on water supply and sanitation programmes. Loughborough, England:
Loughborough University Water Engineering and Development Centre.
Water and Sanitation (WATSAN). (2013) Faecal Sludge Management: Emptying of
Traditional Pit latrines with Mechanical Equipment. Mzuzu: Mzuzu University.

Water for People. (2014) Report on the Gulper, Rammer and Nibbler development. The
Kampala Sani Hub Project.

Water Research Commission. (2015) The Status of faecal sludge management in eight

Southern and East African Countries. Research project No.K8/11/00/11.

Water Sanitation Program (WSP) (2012) Economic Impacts of the Poor Sanitation in

Africa (Malawi).

Water Utility Partnership. (2003) Better water and sanitation for the urban poor.
Waterlines 16(2), pp.1518.
WIN-SA. (2011) What happen when the pit is full: A story of Pits, PETs and Manage
Sludges. Water Research Commission.
World Health Organization and UNICEF. (2015) Progress on Sanitation and Drinking
Water-2015 Update and MDG assessment. Geneva: WHO Press.
World Health Organization. (2014) Child causes of death CHERG estimates for child
causes of death, 200-2013. Geneva: World Health Organization press.

77
 Appendices

Appendix 1: Consent form for households of test pit latrines in sampled study area

Consent Form

Centre of Excellence in Water and Sanitation

Mzuzu University

P/Bag 201, Mzuzu 2, Malawi

Informed Consent Form for research on design, development and testing of pit emptying
technology for peri urban Mzuzu (Malawi)
Master of Sanitation at Mzuzu University, Department of Water Resources
Management and Development

Name of Principle Investigator: Willy Chipeta (Masters Student)

Co-Principal Investigator: Dr. Rochelle Holm

Name of Institution: Centre of Excellence in Water and Sanitation, Mzuzu

University in partnership with Mzuzu University

Department of Water Resources Management and Development

Name of Sponsor: Water Research Commission (WRC) South Africa

Name of Project and Version: Research into Faecal Sludge Emptying in Informal

Settlements of Malawi

2014
78
This Informed Consent Form has two parts:

Information Sheet (to share information about the study with you)

Certificate of Consent (for signatures if you choose to participate)

Part I: Information Sheet

Introduction

My name is Willy Chipeta and I am a Master of Science student at Mzuzu University in

Malawi. The main focus of my research studies it to develop pit emptying technologies for use
in informal settlements . I am going to give you information and invite you to be part of this
research. You do not have to decide today whether or not you will participate in the research.
Before you decide, you can talk to anyone you feel comfortable with about the research.

This consent form may contain words that you do not understand. Please ask me to stop as we
go through the information and I will take time to explain. If you have questions later, you can
ask them of me or of another researcher.

Purpose of the research

The aim of this research undertaking is to develop technologies for feacal sludge emptying
that are suited to context specific realities hence more effective than existing technological
options to ably promote provision of safe and sustainable sanitary services for informal urban
settlements in peri urban Mzuzu. It is envisioned that with the development of more effective
technologies for pit latrine emptying, challenges faced from full pits can be alleviated amidst
space constraints that limit option of digging a new pit latrine as well as associated faecal oral
disease risks that may arise. Therefore it is believed that through testing of developed pit
emptying technologies on actual pit latrines can contribute to learning on performance and
ways of refining the technology for optimization of potential use on a wider scale within
similar condition within Malawi and beyond.

Type of Research Intervention

This research entails that developed technologies need to be tested on actual pit latrines (lined
or unlined) to assess performance. Therefore it will involve your granting of access to your pit
latrine.

Participant Selection
79
Your household has been sampled to participate as it is within the designated study area
chosen for the study and because you can contribute much to our understanding of pit
emptying technologies if you grant us access your pit latrine for testing.

Voluntary Participation

Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. It is your choice whether to

participate or not. If you choose not to participate nothing will change. You are not expected
to pay anything for pit emptying nor will we pay you any monetary or any other reward in
return for your granting us access to your latrine.

Procedures

If you accept;

The procedure for testing developed technologies takes approximately 2 hours. It involves
picking out rubbish for 10 minutes, pouring a pail of water (20 litres) and stirring for 10
to 20 minutes. The remaining time is pumping the liquefied sludge using a pit pump
(modified treadle pump) on to a container for carrying extracted sludge to sewage ponds
at Nkhorongo. During the test photograph shall be taken of latrine and pit emptying
machine in operation only

To mitigate health risks and inconvenience the following procedures been put in place:-

Sludge extracted shall be carried to disposal facility

After test on latrine the area shall be cleaned with Gik and Lime
Children and all members of the household should be within 30 meters of working
site during the duration of the test
We ask if possible you could use a neighbors latrine facility during the duration of
the test
Please raise any concern that you may have as regards this research before giving
consent.
Test can stop at any time if you observe that there is a pertinent concern that has
to be addressed immediately.

The information recorded is confidential and shall pertain primarily to the performance of the
tested technology, your name is not being included on the forms, only a number will identify

80
you, and no one else except Willy Chipeta, Dr. Rochelle Holm and research supervisors will
have access to it

Duration: The research takes place over 2 years with 3 months of actual data collection.

Confidentiality

The research being done may draw attention and if you participate by other people in the
community. We will not be sharing information about you to anyone outside of the research
team. The information that we collect from this research project will be kept private. Any
information about you will have a number on it instead of your name. Only the researchers
will know what your number is and we will lock that information up with a lock and key. It
will not be shared with or given to anyone except Willy Chipeta, Dr. Rochelle Holm,
Research Supervisors at Mzuzu University.

Sharing the Results

Nothing you tell us today will be shared with anybody outside the research team, and nothing
will be attributed to you by name. The knowledge that we get from this research will be
shared with you and your community before it is made widely available to the public. The
District Council will receive a summary of the results. Following, we will publish the results
so other interested people may learn from the research.

Right to Refuse or Withdraw

You do not have to take part in this research if you do not wish to do so, and choosing to
participate will not accrue any reward to you and your household.

Who to Contact

If you have any questions, you can ask them now or later. If you wish to ask questions later,
you may contact the following: Willy Chipeta : 0999274121; Dr. Rochelle Holm, Rochelle
Holm, Mzuzu University, Centre of Excellence in Water and Sanitation Manager, P/Bag 201,
Mzuzu 2, Malawi, Cell: +265992159079 or +265882725730.

Do you have any questions?

Part II: Certificate of Consent

81
I have been invited to participate in research on Pit Emptying Technology Development in
Peri urban Mzuzu

I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the
opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions I have been asked have been
answered to my satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study

Print Name of Participant__________________

Signature of Participant ___________________

Date ___________________________

Day/month/year

If illiterate1

I have witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to the potential participant,
and the individual has had the opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the
individual has given consent freely.

Print name of witness____________ Thumb print of participant

Signature of witness _____________

Date ________________________ Day/month/year

Statement by the researcher/person taking consent

I have accurately read out the information sheet to the potential participant, and to
the best of my ability made sure that the participant understands the research project.

1 A literate witness must sign (if possible, this person should be selected by the participant and should have no
connection to the research team). Participants who are illiterate should include their thumb print as well.

82
I confirm the participant was given an opportunity to ask questions about the study, and
all the questions asked by the participant have been answered correctly and to the best
of my ability. I confirm that the individual has not been coerced into giving consent, and
the consent has been given freely and voluntarily.

Signature of Researcher /person taking the consent__________________________

Date ___________________________

Day/month/year

A literate witness must sign (if possible, this person should be selected by the participant
and should have no connection to the research team). Participants who are illiterate
should include their thumb print as well.

83
 Appendix 2: Mud slurry data collection sheets

Mud slurry Test for Pit Emptying

Mud Slurry Volume Discharge TS TT R WFF TT TT TTC CT

Test NO (m3) F P
(R/W)

R/W: Rubbish added and without Rubbish

TS: Time Started

TTR: Time taken to pick out Rubbish

WFF: Water for Fluidization

TTF: Time Taken to Fluidize

TTP: Time Taken to Pump

TTC: Time taken to clean up

CT: Completion Time

84
 Appendix 3: Data collection sheets for pit emptying tests

Data Collection sheet Latrine Test

Latrine No GPS Head Discharge TS TT R WFF TT TTP TT CT

(L/U) (m) (m3) F C

L/U: lined and unlined

GPS: Global Positioning system

TS: Time Started

TTR: Time taken to pick out Rubbish

WFF: Water for Fluidization

TTF: Time Taken to Fluidize

TTP: Time Taken to Pump

TTC: Time taken to clean up

CT: Completion Time

85
Appendix 4: Health and safety plan for research into pit emptying technologies

Mzuzu University

Health and Safety Plan for Research on Design, Development and

Testing of Pit Emptying Technology for Peri urban Mzuzu, Malawi

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: WILLY CHIPETA

Co-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. ROCHELLE HOLM

SUPERVISORS: Mr. Eddie Mtonga

Mr. Kamanula

2014

86
1.0 Introduction

The protection of human health and the environment is of utmost importance. In this regard working
with pit emptying technologies and handling faecal sludge that host a significant number of pathogens
requires due attention and diligence. Therefore to avoid harm to eventuate health and safety measures
have been devised to obviate potential risks that can be met in the course of undertaking the research
venture.

2.0 Equipment (Preparation for field)

The following is a minimum list of equipment to be used during Pit Emptying field activities

Elbow level gloves

Ventilator mask with activated carbon

Safety goggles

Safety suite for the operator

black refuse bags

newspaper/ paper towels

Latex powder free gloves

Safety rope

Bleach (jik) for disinfection

Sprayer

First aid kit

3.0 Travel to field location

Use roadworthy, appropriately insured vehicles. Driver to have appropriate license.

Inform person at office of intended destination and estimated return time.(see form attached)
4.0 Personnel safety

Liaise with relevant officials at municipality

Arrange introductions to caretaker and/or householder in charge of facility before starting
testing developed technologies, ensure they are kept informed about activities taking place
Use local facilitators where advised to do so by municipality

87
5.0 Transport of Extracted Sludge to Sludge Ponds

Put on safety belt for all research team members

Tight-fitting lids to be fitted on top of drums to avoid spillage on route to sludge ponds
located at Nkhorongo
6.0 Procedures to reduce risk
The following points should be noted:

hence making it unsuitable and hazardous to those emptying and future users.

be emptied may have stayed for several years, with the bottom layers
undergoing some partial decomposition; they contain a layer of fresh feces.

carbon, Safety goggles, and Safety suite), dispose of rubbish carefully, and disinfect the work area
and equipment.

At the end of pit emptying activities, disinfection of personnel, equipment and the area
surrounding the pit (as applicable) should be done with a suitable disinfection chemical. Suitable
disinfection chemicals may include chloride of lime and HTH.

Visitors to the field project are also required to read and adhere to this policy. For visitors not directly
involved in field activities, a set-back distance of 20 m should be adhered to for viewing.
7.0 Emergences
In the event of a health and safety concern, the following individuals should immediately be
notified. Even small events, such as cuts and scrapes, should be reported and noted in the field
logbook:

Table 1. List of Mzuzu University contacts for Health and Safety Concerns.

Call Order Name Phone Number

1 Dr. Rochelle Holm, Manager Cell: +265992159079 or +265882725730

2 Mr. Eddie Mtonga Cell: 0888570211

3 Dr. Kamanula Cell: 0992343494

88
Appendix 5: Ethical clearance for research study

89