BackgroundHealth risks associated with poor sanitation behaviours continue to be reported mostly from low-income countries (LICs). Reports show that various factors limit many people from accessing and using improved latrines, forcing some to opt for sharing latrines with neighbours, others practicing open defecation. Meanwhile, debate prevails on whether shared latrines should be categorised as unimproved according to WHO/UNICEF-JMP criteria. We contribute to this debate based on results from a study undertaken in three regions, Tanzania.Materials and methodsData were collected through observations in 1,751 households with latrines, coupled with collection of opinions from heads of such households regarding the latrine-sharing practices. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess associations between the outcome and possible predictor variables.ResultsOf all 1,751 latrines, 14.6% were shared. Among the shared latrines, 74.2% were found being generally clean as compared to 69.2% of the non-shared ones. Comparing the shared and non-shared latrines, the non-shared latrines were significantly less likely to be found with floors built with permanent materials (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.98); washable floors (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.93); and lockable doors (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.95). Shared latrines were less likely to have floors with faecal matter, functional handwashing facilities (HWFs), HWFs with running water, and roofs; albeit the differences in all these scenarios were not statistically significant. Respondents expressed desire for improved latrines, but also did not find it wrong to share latrines if cleanliness was maintained.ConclusionHaving an ‘improved’ latrine remains important as JMP recommends, but based on our study findings, we argue that possessing a non-shared latrine neither guarantees safety to its users nor its categorisation as ‘improved’. Instead, the state of the latrine, the construction technology used and the behaviours of the users may be more important.

environmental conditions is considered to achieve better results than the conventional septic tank systems. Capacity building of local masons in the design and installation of septic tank systems; awareness sensitization to the public; and review of policy and guidelines to incoporate tailored designs are among the recommendations.

Growing recognition of treated wastewater as a resource is among the factors influencing its reuse in agriculture worldwide. Long-term effect of irrigation with treated wastewater on soil is widely reported; however, the effect of irrigated farming cycles with treated sewage on soil fertility is rarely reported. In this study, greenhouse maize plot experiment, consisting of triplicate plots irrigated with treated sewage and tap water was conducted for three consecutive farming cycles. Soil was sampled for analysis at the depths of 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm and 40-60 cm after every farming cycle. After the third farming cycle, pH and organic matter content increased significantly (P≤0.05) at all depths; NO3-N and PO4-P increased at 0-20 cm, though was not significant (P≥0.05); while EC and TDS decreased at all depths. With exception of pH, soil organic matter content, NO3-N, and PO4-P, were significantly higher (P≤0.05) in plots irrigated with treated sewage for all cycles; while EC and TDS were only significant after the second farming cycle. Variation of soil parameters was not consistent with the irrigated farming cycles. Irrigation with treated sewage improved soil PO4-P and organic matter content but posed soil alkalinity, thus pH amendment is needed after the third farming cycle.

No abstract