Caracterização sócio-ambiental da comunidade de Coquilho na zona rural de São Luís-MA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/223613083105Keywords:
Water, Human waste, QualityAbstract
The inadequate sanitation is a major cause of environmental degradation and spread of diseasesin Brazil, being responsible for many hospital internations resulting in public spending. TheCoquilho community, of about 611 families distributed in 475 ha., is poor residents constitutedcoming from of the area where nowadays located a aluminum company. Accordingly, wascharacterized the socio-environmental community, especially its way of life emphasizing itsenvironmental problems. It can be seen that although this community has no access togovernment policies, has a profile adequated for implementation of projects for environmentalsanitation and low-cost alternative. It is essential to adopt solutions to wastewater and sewagetreatment alternative for improving the water quality of life of this community.Downloads
References
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR-13969: Tanques sépticos - Unidades de tratamento complementar e disposição final dos efluentes líquidos - Projeto, construção e operação. Rio de Janeiro, 1997.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR-7229: Projeto, construção e operação de sistemas de
tanques sépticos. Rio de Janeiro, 1993.
BRASIL. Visão geral da prestação de serviços de água e esgoto – 2007. Programa de modernização do setor de
saneamento. Brasília - DF: Ministério das Cidades (MCIDADES). Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento Ambiental
(SNSA). 2005. Disponível em: http://www.snis.gov.br. Acesso em: 17/05/2009.
BORGES, L.Z. Caracterização da água cinza para promoção da sustentabilidade dos recursos hídricos. Dissertação -
Mestrado em Engenharia Ambiental Curitiba, 2003, 91p.
BOTTO, Márcio et al. Estudo da viabilidade técnica e social de tecnologias alternativas de saneamento em comunidades no Estado do Ceará. 23º Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. 2005.
MARTINETTI, Thaís Helena et al. Sistematização e comparação de alternativas mais sustentáveis para tratamento
local de efluentes sanitários residenciais. 24º Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. 2007.
MARANHÃO EM DADOS 2005 / Instituto Maranhense de Estudos Socioeconômicos e Cartográficos – São Luís:
IMESC, 2007.
MATIAS, Moisés. Oficina de tecnologias alternativas. Jornal folha do Amanhã, impresso. São Luís. março,2009. 4p.
SEMA, Secretaria de Meio Ambiente, Relatório Técnico sobre as ações de Educação Ambiental, 2008. São Luís, 56p.
TEIXEIRA, Miriam Barros et al. Sanitário Seco compostável, uma alternativa viável de Saneamento Ambiental.
Artigo do IV Congresso Nacional de Excelência em Gestão. Rio de Janeiro, 2008.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
