Mohammad Ali, Sharmistha Debnath, Tanzima Shahreen
Abstract: To achieve 100 percent Open Defecation Free (ODF) status as well as to increase the sanitation coverage, pit latrine has been getting prime focus of sanitation actors both from government and non-government sectors throughout the country in Bangladesh. Although there are efforts and plans to reach the upper levels of sanition ladder, however, pit latrine has the advantage of being cheapest and easiest solution for sanitation. As a country of flooding and high ground water table, pit latrines form a great threat for environment. There is no doubt that, it could be the best as the starting point to shift from open defecation, nevertheless, while considering long-term sustainability, improved technologies are essential depending on hydro-geological situation. To attain environmental and technological sustainability, concerns of developing appropriate context specific technologies, to overcome to the problem of conventional sanitation, in 2004ecosan/UDDT toilet was first introduced and, after ten years in 2014, Biofiltoilet was introduced as another sustainable sanitation solutions for Bangladesh. These two sanitation options have been tested in different parts of Bangladesh and in alignment of GOBs, around forty research institutions, INGO and NGO installed more than 3000 toilets each option of various models has been constructed to achieve the solution of above problem at a limited scale. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the suitability and potentiality of scaling up of Ecosan/UDDT and Biofil toilet in Bangladesh through focusing on the following aspects: (1) Socio-cultural and institutional (2) Financial and economic (3) Technology and operation (4) Environmental and health. The study carried out literature review, field observation, questionnaires interview from user of 100 toilets to evaluate the functionality and performance of ecosan/UDDT and Biofil toilet which constructed in different parts of Bangladesh. Also, interview (KII) was conducted with seven sanitation experts and providers. According to JADE only 60 % (2016) and based on the survey more than 40 % installed ecosan/UDDT are functional. Similarly, according to Biofil company90 % are toilets are functional and based on the survey more than 80 % installed Biofil are functional which include toilet in camp context. Biofil user acceptance and satisfaction is higher than ecosan/UDDT and the influencing factors are no change in regular practice, no odour and desludging frequency is less. Skilled mason for Ecosan/UDDT construction is not available locally and on the other hand, only Biofil company has their own skilled mason group. Considering the cost effectiveness of both options HH (5.3 USD/user) and communal (1.5 USD/user) model of Biofil are more effective than Ecosan/UDDT, as its requires regular monitoring and O&M cost and desludging frequency and cost is higher than Biofil. Only 10 % and 2 % ecosan/UDDT user using compost and urine in the agricultural field respectively, but still cultural and religious issues are the main barrier to use the compost and urine of ecosan/UDDT as fertilizer. In case of Biofil, vermicompost is yet to use as fertilizer. According to lab test in both the cases, the nutrition value is high as potential organic fertilizer. Ecosan/UDDT user cant depend on the compost or urine as the volume is very much less than requirements and it cant complement the chemical fertilizer and there is no market demand for it. Needs properly sun dry faeces and use of safety gear during handling ismissing in practice level which increases health risk. For both the cases, different laboratory result says that the contents of heavy metals and other contaminants are generally low or very low in excreta and it is found that the presence is below or within WHO and Bangladesh Agricultural standard. Mean N, P, K and Organic Matter found in good percentage in different samples which are important elements for soil nutrient and increase the water holding capacity of soil. Presence of organic matter in vermicompost is higher than the compost from ecosan/UDDT. For both the cases the significant amount of microbial contamination were observed in some tube well water.76 percentages of EcoSan toilet surrounding water bodies are in range of no or without risk. Besides during flood there is little chance of contamination of surface water as well and it is applicable for Biofilferrocement tank model. It is proven that presence of E coli is very much less than conventional pit latrine.
Keywords: Biofil-Worm-Based Toilet, Rohingya