UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 182 - 188 ISSN: 2616 - 0668

https://doi.org/10.47430/ujmr.2161.024

Received: 20th May, 2021 Accepted: 09th June, 2021

Assessment of Faecal Sludge Management in Nguru Town, Yobe State,

Northeastern Nigeria

M.Z.Karkarna and Muktar Adamu

Department of Environmental Management, Bayero University Kano, Nigeria
Corresponding author email: mzkarkarna@gmail.com
Abstract
The aim of the study is to assess faecal sludge management (FSM) in Nguru town, Nguru Local
Government area of Yobe State. Random sampling method was used in the selection of
respondents in six political wards of the study area. A total of 399 questionnaires were
administered to respondents in the study area with the view to identify the types and current
practices of faecal sludge management in the study area. The result of the study indicates that
majority of the respondents 68% used pit latrine, 24% used water closet while 8% used other type
of toilet facilities. However, on the excreta defecation, the finding indicated that 84% had access
to household toilets, 8.0% used public toilets, and 6.0% practiced open defecation with the
remaining 2% practicing defecation in polythene bags after which they discard it into the bush or
on a refuse dump. The study further revealed that majority (54%) of the respondents disposed
their toilet sludge by land fill, 31% participants were using any available land for faecal sludge
final disposal while 10 % and 5% disposed their toilet by nearby river and composting respectively.
The finding indicated that, the faecal sludge management of the study area is unsatisfactory and
may pose a risk of environmental and adverse human health. The current practices of faecal
sludge management were found below international standard requirement set by WHO. It is
therefore recommend that Government should come up with proper orientation and
environmental laws should be put in place for the general public and also to provide necessary
facilities and arrange for better methods of faecal sludge management.
Keywords: FSM, Nguru town, Toilet facilities and open defecation

INTRODUCTION target to achieve access to adequate and

Excreta are a part of everyday life. Every adult equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end
human being produces 130 g of faeces and 1.4 L open defecation by 2030 (United Nations
of urine every day (Rose et al. 2015). The Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
negative part of all these excreta is that if it is 2015).
not managed properly, these waste products Poor sanitation has differential impacts on the
cause waterborne diseases and water pollution, health of men, women, boys and girls as well as
and a lack of access to clean, functioning broad economic and environmental
toilets threatens human dignity. And that is the implications. Access to sanitation facilities
case for 2.4 billion people worldwide without remains a challenge for urban populations in
access to sanitary toilets (UNICEF & WHO, many sub-Saharan African cities, particularly
2015). Africa (including Nigeria) recorded the for people living in poor peri urban areas.
least progress, with use of improved sanitation Socioeconomic status and settlement
increasing from 26 percent in 1990 to 31 characteristics are the main indicators of
percent in 2006 (WHO and UNICEF, 2008). access to reliable water and sanitation in peri-
In response to the lack of access to basic urban settlements (Angoua et al., 2018). While
sanitation, the United Nations defined the a lack of sanitation facilities reflects the lack of
target of Goal 7 of the Millennium Development services in urban and peri-urban spaces,
Goals (i.e., MDGs) to halve the proportion of community members bear some responsibility
the population without access to improved for their environment and health. For example,
sanitation facilities1 during the period from unauthorized temporary structures, discharging
1990 to 2015 (United Nations 2015). wastewater and excreta into public spaces,
Unfortunately, it was not achieved. However, dumping garbage near households, and open
now the Sustainable Development Goals (i.e., defecation all contribute to environmental and
SDGs) in September 2015 have defined a new health risks (Angoua et al., 2018).
UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research 182 www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng
 UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 1 - 10 ISSN: 2616 - 0668
Inadequate sanitation is the root cause of many METHODOLOGY
tropical diseases, with improper faecal sludge The Study adopted combinations of desk study
management and poor sanitation contributing and literature reviews, questionnaire
to the 115 deaths per hour from excreta- administration and field observations. The field
related diseases in Africa (Chowdhry and Koné, data have collected using survey research
2012; Mara et al., 2010). While faecal sludge is method, involving the use of questionnaire and
rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and interview technique in obtaining information
organic matter, it also contains high counts of about the nature, practices and consequences
pathogenic coliforms, E. coli and helminth eggs poor faecal sludge management. Purposive
(Pradhan, 2016; Strande et al., 2014). Contact sampling was used in the selection of areas of
with as little as one gram of fresh faeces study within the Nguru town. Seven areas
exposes a person to as many as 106 viral (Bulabulin, Hausari, tsohon guru, Sabon
pathogens, 106–108 bacterial pathogens, 104 garinkanuri, Garbi and Dumsai wards) were
protozoan cysts or oocysts, and 10–104 helminth purposively selected due in-appropriate
eggs (Thaku et al., 2018). designation locations for Faecal Sludge disposal
In Nigeria, like many other developing countries in these area. A Random sampling was used in
across the globe, contends with enormous the selection of participants from the sampling
global and local environmental problems. frame which was obtained using purposive
Government has been making efforts to tackle sampling techniques. Sample size was
most of the environmental issues both solely determined by using Yaro Yamane (1963)
and in partnership with donor agencies, but sample size determination formula, which is
surprisingly it is largely negligent in faecal stated below as follows;
sludge management (FSM). There is no state in n= N / 1+N (E)2……………………………Equation 1
Nigeria with a coordinated structure of Where: n = the sample size to be determined; N
managing faecal sludge, except the FCT = the population of the study. e = Limit of the
perhaps. Most states seem to care less what error acceptable for the study = 5%; 1 =
becomes of faecal wastes they generate. They constant. Therefore, N=150,632 because Nguru
do not insist on designated locations for Faecal local government areas has a population of
Sludge disposal and faecal wastes are therefore 150,632 according to 2006 (NPC, 2006 Census)
indiscriminately disposed in water bodies, n= N / 1+N (E)2 =150632/1+150632 (0.05)2=
bushes or in gullies. These open dumps cause a 399 .
lot of health hazards and reduce the beauty Thus, 399 questionnaires were distributed in all
value of the surrounding environment and also out of which 279 were duly completed and
contaminate the natural resources. Numerous returned.
studies have been conducted on environmental Frequency and percentage were used to
sanitation in Yobe and others state of Nigeria, analyze the data. The result was presented in
but relatively only few studies were carried form table and charts were also produced using
outon faecal sludge management. Therefore, SPSS. The data were presented in tables and
the objective of this work is to assess faecal charts were also produced using excel
sludge management practices in some parts of
Nguru town, Nguru Local Government, Yobe RESULT AND DISCUSSION
State, Nigeria. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics
of the respondents where more than three
MATERIALS AND METHODS quarter of the respondents were age 21 and
STUDY AREA above indicating that majority of the residents
Nguru town is head quarter of Nguru Local are youth and within their active age. The
Government Area (LGA) in Yobe state, northern result also revealed that half of the
Nigeria. It is located near river Hadejia at 12° respondents were males. The overwhelming
52ʹ 45ʺ N to 10° 27ʹ 09ʺ E .It has population of majority are married which constituted (72.7%)
150,632 (Census, 2006) with projection of respondents. These findings agree with finding
213,900 population, an area of 916sq, km of National Health and Demographic Survey
(census 2006). The topography of Nguru is (NDHS, 2018). The level of education of the
mainly flat with a variety of landscapes as residents is generally low, only a few of the
Hadejia-Nguru wetlands of Nguru Lake and the respondents constituted (23%) have tertiary
Sand dunes around machine road. Nguru has hot education while majority attend Quranic
and dry climate throughout the year. schools only.

183
UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng
 UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 184 - 190 ISSN: 2616 - 0668

Table 4.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Characteristics Respondents Frequency Percentage
Below 20 36 13.0
21-40 58 20.8
41-50 109 39.1
Above 50 76 27.1
Age Total 279 100
Female 134 48.0
Male 145 52.0
Gender Total 279 100.0
Marital Status Married 203 72.7
Single 76 27.3
Total 279 100.0
Level of Education Quranic Below 20 39.1
Primary 21-40 16.5
Secondary 41-60 21.4
Tertiary Above 60 23.0
Total Total 100
Source: Field work, 2019.
Figures 1 indicate the toilet facilities used by the respondents in the study area. The result
indicated that majority of the respondents (94%) had access to toilet facilities while only (6%) do
not have toilet. The finding is in line with the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program on Faecal
Sludge Management in 12 cities in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and East who reported that 64%
of the excreta in Urban and peri urban centres were processed by onsite sanitation technologies but
only 22% was safely managed (World Bank Water Supply and Sanitation Program 2014). Access to
toilet facilities is beneficial to households in terms of improved health status and gains in time
saved for productive activities (Trémolet, 2013).

Toilet Facilities

Yes
No

Figure 1: Toilet facilities of the Respondents in the Study area

Figure 2 shows different category of faecal sludge used in the study area. Majority of the
respondents, 68% used pit latrine, 24% of the respondents used water closet while 8% respondents
used other type of toilet facilities. This finding agrees with Murtala and Nafiu (2021) who reported
that majority of the residents (52%) in Fagoji area of Dutse used pit latrine. Also, in another study
conducted by Antwi-Agye in Madina municipal, Ghana (2009) reported hat majority of the house
hold toilet (47%) were water closet followed by pit latrine which accounted (27%) while only 3%
respondents used bucket/pan latrine. Similarly, the work of Eawag/Sandec 2015 in Kampala
stated that, the city is served mostly by pit latrines, a hole at the bottom of pit latrines is
frequently made during the rainy season so that the faecal sludge directly drains out, resulting in
direct discharge of faecal sludge in the environment

UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research 184 www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng

 UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 184 - 190 ISSN: 2616 - 0668

Figure 2 Type of Faecal sludge Management

Figure 3 shows defecation Practices adopted by respondents in the study area. The result indicated
that 84% had access to household toilets, 8% used public toilets, 6 % practiced open defaecation
with the remaining 2% practicing defecation in polythene bags after which they discard it into the
bush or on a refuse dump. This study is in line with Peal et al (2014) who analyzed Faecal sludge
Management in 12 developing cities. The finding reported the extent of open defecation ranges
from a high of 81% in Honduras (indicated here by 19% using open defecation) to a low of 9% in
Kampala, Uganda (91% on-site or open defecation) and the two smaller towns: Palu, Indonesia and
Dumaguete, Philippines with no open defecation.
Some studies have reported that inaccessible sanitation designs force people with physical
impairments to crawl on the floor to use a toilet or opt to defecate in the open. A high proportion
of vulnerable household members have been found to be very reliant on others to use the toilet,
sometimes soiling themselves while waiting, and many limit their consumption of food and water to
reduce the need to relieve themselves (Wilbur and Jones, 2014). There are reported cases, though
the exact estimate is not known, of people with disabilities being considered contagious and
therefore prevented from using communal toilet facilities (Wilbur and Danquah, 2015

Defaecation
80
60
40 Defaecation
20
0
Household toilet Open defeacation

Figure 3 Defaecation Practices in Nguru Local Government

Figure 4 Shows that 160 respondents constitute 41% empty toilet by traditional digging, motor tank
80 respondents constitute 21%, wheel barrow 90 respondents constitute 23%, and replacement 54
respondents constitute 14%. This study is inconsistent with the work of Jenkins et al., (2015) who
reported that the widespread use of pit diversion (78 per cent), followed by tankers (58 per cent)
and buckets (56 per cent) in empty toilet within Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A recent study in
Blantyre, Malawi revealed that most discharged sludge is taken from a small proportion of septic
tanks in the city, while sludge from pit latrines (the most common sanitation technology) remains
uncollected (Yesaya and Tilley, 2020). These findings support the need for appropriate businesses
and infrastructures for faecal sludge management, including sustainable financing mechanisms to
subsidize emptying services, which would make payment more affordable and encourage regulatory
efforts to promote safe services (Jenkins et al., 2015).

UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research 185 www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng

 UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 184 - 190 ISSN: 2616 - 0668

Figure 4: Methods of Emptying Toilet

Figure 5 shows the Faecal sludge treatment in the study area. Results showed that 22% of the
people sprays petroleum in their faecal treatment (28% used izole for waste treatment) and 23%
used traditional method of using ash in Nguru. Eighteen percent (26%) of the respondents used
composting in faecal treatment. The finding is line with the work of (Chowdhry and Koné, (2012)
who identified poor faecal sludge treatment facilities in many African countries for financial
reasons. Where available, existing facilities lack the capacity to treat the volume of faecal sludge
generated or are very expensive to maintain. For example, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the treatment
plant has the capacity to receive only 67 per cent of the 530,000 m3 sludge collected annually.

Treatment

35
30
25
20
15 Treatment
10
5
0
Spray Petrol Spray Kerosine Treatment Izole
palnt

Figure 5 Faecal SludgeTreatment methods in Nguru

Figure 6 present different disposal strategy adopted by respondents in the study area. Majority
(54%) of them disposed their toilet sludge by land fill, 31% participants were using any available
land for faecal sludge final disposal while 10 % and 5% disposed their toilet by nearby river and
composting respectively .The result of disposal methods obtained in this investigation is
inconsistent with those reported by Mills, (2013) in Indonesia where the drain or sewer then
discharges unsafely to the environment via a river or drain without treatment.

UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research 186 www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng

 UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 184 - 190 ISSN: 2616 - 0668

Figure 6: How household disposed their Toilet

3.0 CONCLUSION meet the standard requirement set by world

The conclusion drawn from this limited study is health organization (WHO). It is therefore
that the management of faecal sludge would recommend that Government should come up
have to involve detailed study of the different with proper orientation and environmental laws
form of practices and mitigate its risk of should be put in place for the general public
environmental and adverse human health. and also to provide necessary facilities and
Furthermore, the faecal sludge management arrange for better methods of faecal sludge
practices of Nguru town should be improves to management.

REFERENCE Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. International

Angoua, E.L.E., Dongo, K., Templeton, M.R., Journal of Environmental Research and
Zinsstag, J. and Bonfoh, B. (2018). Public Health 12(3), 2588-2611
Barriers to access improved water and Nikiema,J.,Tanoh-Nguessan, R.,Abiola, F. and
sanitation in poor peri-urban Cofie, O. O. (2020). Introducing Co-
settlements of Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Composting to Fecal Sludge Treatment
PloS one 13(8): e0202928, 1-13. Plants in Benin and Burkina Faso: A
ANTWI-AGYEI, P. (2009) Faecal sludge Logistical and Financial Assessment.
management: the case of Madina. Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 17.
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI, CGIAR
and Technology-KNUST MSc thesis Research Program on Water, Land and
Department of Water Supply and Ecosystems (WLE).
Environmental Sanitation NDHS (2018). Nigeria Demographic and Health
Chowdhry, S. and Kone, D. (2012). Business Survey, National population Commission
Analysis of Faecal Sludge Management: Abuja Nigeria
Emptying and Transportation Services in Joint Monitoring Programme(JMP) (2019). Wash
Africa and Asia. Draft Final Report. Data for 2017.
Sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates https://washdata.org/data. Accessed
Foundation, Seattle. 20 November 2019.
Eawag/Sandec (ed.) Brandes K, Schoebitz L, J-PAL (2012). J-PAL Urban Services Review
Kimwaga R, Strande L (2015a) SFD Paper. Cambridge, MA: Abdul Latif
Promotion Initiative – Dar es Salaam, Jameel Poverty Action Lab.
Tanzania, Report. Eawag/Sandec. http://econweb.
Jenkins, M. W., Cumming, O. and Cairncross, S. umd.edu/~galiani/files/usi-review-
(2015). Pit latrine emptying behavior paper.pd
and demand for sanitation services in
UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research 187 www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng
 UJMR, Volume 6 Number 1, June, 2021, pp 184 - 190 ISSN: 2616 - 0668
Mara,D.,Lane, J.,Scott, B. and programmes that deliver for all in
Trouba,D.(2010). Sanitation and health. Uganda and Zambia—an early indication
PLoSMed7(11):e1000363.https://doi.org of trends. 38th WEDC International
/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000363. Conference. Loughborough University,
Peal, A., Evans, B.E., Blackett, I., Hawkins, P. UK, 26 July-30 July 2015.
M. and Heymans, C. (2014). Faecal Wilbur, J. and Jones, H. (2014). Disability:
sludge management: analytical tools for Making CLTS fully inclusive. Frontiers of
assessing FSM in cities. Journal of CLTS: Innovations and Insights (3).
Water, Sanitation & Hygiene for Brighton: IDS
Development 4(3), 371-383. UNICEF & WHO (2015) Progress on Sanitation
Strande, L, M. Ronteltap, and D. Brdjanovic and Drinking Water – 2015 Update and
(eds.) (2014). Faecal Sludge MDG Assessment. Geneva: WHO Press.
Management: Systems Approach for United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2016).
Implementation and Operation. London, The Demographic Profile of African
UK: IWA Publishing. Countries. Economic Commission for
Rose C, Parker a, Jefferson B, Cartmell E (2015) Africa.
The characterization of feces and https://www.uneca.org/sites/default/
urine: a review of the literature to files/PublicationFiles/demographic_pro
inform advanced treatment technology. file_rev_april_25.pdf
Critical Reviews in Environmental United Nations, Department of Economic and
Science and Technology 45(17): 1827– Social Affairs, Population Division
1879. (2015). World Urbanization Prospects:
Trémolet, S. (2013). Sanitation economics: The 2014 Revision (Report No.
understanding why sanitation markets ST/ESA/SER.A/366).
fail and how they can improve. https://population.un.org/
Waterlines 32(4), 273-285. wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-
Thakur, R., Singh, B. B., Jindal, P., Aulakh, R. Report.pdf
S. and Gill, J. P. S. (2018). The Clean Yesaya, M. and Tilley, E. (2020). Sludge bomb:
India Mission: Public and animal health The impending sludge emptying and
benefits. Acta Tropica 186, 5-15 treatment crisis in Blantyre, Malawi.
Wilbur, J. and Danquah, L. (2015). Undoing Journal of Environmental Management,
inequity: water, sanitation and hygiene 277; 111474.

UMYU Journal of Microbiology Research 188 www.ujmr.umyu.edu.ng