Quantitative assessment of exposure to fecal contamination in urban environment across nine cities in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and a city in the United States.
Exposure assessment
Fecal
LLMIC
Multi-city
Pathway
WASH
Journal
The Science of the total environment
ISSN: 1879-1026
Titre abrégé: Sci Total Environ
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0330500
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Feb 2022
01 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
03
09
2021
revised:
23
10
2021
accepted:
23
10
2021
pubmed:
1
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
31
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
During 2014 to 2019, the SaniPath Exposure Assessment Tool, a standardized set of methods to evaluate risk of exposure to fecal contamination in the urban environment through multiple exposure pathways, was deployed in 45 neighborhoods in ten cities, including Accra and Kumasi, Ghana; Vellore, India; Maputo, Mozambique; Siem Reap, Cambodia; Atlanta, United States; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Lusaka, Zambia; Kampala, Uganda; Dakar, Senegal. Assess and compare risk of exposure to fecal contamination via multiple pathways in ten cities. In total, 4053 environmental samples, 4586 household surveys, 128 community surveys, and 124 school surveys were collected. E. coli concentrations were measured in environmental samples as an indicator of fecal contamination magnitude. Bayesian methods were used to estimate the distributions of fecal contamination concentration and contact frequency. Exposure to fecal contamination was estimated by the Monte Carlo method. The contamination levels of ten environmental compartments, frequency of contact with those compartments for adults and children, and estimated exposure to fecal contamination through any of the surveyed environmental pathways were compared across cities and neighborhoods. Distribution of fecal contamination in the environment and human contact behavior varied by city. Universally, food pathways were the most common dominant route of exposure to fecal contamination across cities in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Risks of fecal exposure via water pathways, such as open drains, flood water, and municipal drinking water, were site-specific and often limited to smaller geographic areas (i.e., neighborhoods) instead of larger areas (i.e., cities). Knowledge of the relative contribution to fecal exposure from multiple pathways, and the environmental contamination level and frequency of contact for those "dominant pathways" could provide guidance for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) programming and investments and enable local governments and municipalities to improve intervention strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to fecal contamination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
During 2014 to 2019, the SaniPath Exposure Assessment Tool, a standardized set of methods to evaluate risk of exposure to fecal contamination in the urban environment through multiple exposure pathways, was deployed in 45 neighborhoods in ten cities, including Accra and Kumasi, Ghana; Vellore, India; Maputo, Mozambique; Siem Reap, Cambodia; Atlanta, United States; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Lusaka, Zambia; Kampala, Uganda; Dakar, Senegal.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Assess and compare risk of exposure to fecal contamination via multiple pathways in ten cities.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 4053 environmental samples, 4586 household surveys, 128 community surveys, and 124 school surveys were collected. E. coli concentrations were measured in environmental samples as an indicator of fecal contamination magnitude. Bayesian methods were used to estimate the distributions of fecal contamination concentration and contact frequency. Exposure to fecal contamination was estimated by the Monte Carlo method. The contamination levels of ten environmental compartments, frequency of contact with those compartments for adults and children, and estimated exposure to fecal contamination through any of the surveyed environmental pathways were compared across cities and neighborhoods.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Distribution of fecal contamination in the environment and human contact behavior varied by city. Universally, food pathways were the most common dominant route of exposure to fecal contamination across cities in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Risks of fecal exposure via water pathways, such as open drains, flood water, and municipal drinking water, were site-specific and often limited to smaller geographic areas (i.e., neighborhoods) instead of larger areas (i.e., cities).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Knowledge of the relative contribution to fecal exposure from multiple pathways, and the environmental contamination level and frequency of contact for those "dominant pathways" could provide guidance for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) programming and investments and enable local governments and municipalities to improve intervention strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to fecal contamination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34718001
pii: S0048-9697(21)06351-8
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151273
pmc: PMC8651627
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151273Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Food Prot. 2008 Dec;71(12):2389-97
pubmed: 19244889
Int J Food Sci. 2014;2014:483519
pubmed: 26904635
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 13;15(12):
pubmed: 30551597
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 10;10(11):e0142346
pubmed: 26556044
J Food Prot. 2012 Dec;75(12):2151-7
pubmed: 23212011
J Appl Microbiol. 2017 Sep;123(3):570-581
pubmed: 28383815
J Water Health. 2016 Apr;14(2):255-66
pubmed: 27105411
Environ Microbiol. 2010 Sep;12(9):2385-97
pubmed: 20636374
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2016 Aug 10;18(8):944-55
pubmed: 27384220
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Oct;97(4):1009-1019
pubmed: 29031283
Front Microbiol. 2019 Nov 22;10:2667
pubmed: 31824454
FAO Food Nutr Pap. 2006;87:ix-xii, 1-102
pubmed: 17891885
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 12;15(6):e0234364
pubmed: 32530933
Indian J Microbiol. 2011 Jan;51(1):100-6
pubmed: 22282636
FAO Food Nutr Pap. 2006;86:1-74
pubmed: 17593668
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Oct;89(4):709-16
pubmed: 24002485
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Sep;230:113619
pubmed: 32942223
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Dec 1;601-602:1712-1719
pubmed: 28618661
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Oct;97(4):1020-1032
pubmed: 28722599
J Appl Microbiol. 2007 Jul;103(1):80-7
pubmed: 17584454
Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Feb 3;49(3):1912-20
pubmed: 25559008
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Jan;1308:118-28
pubmed: 24571214
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 16;14(12):e0221193
pubmed: 31841549
Risk Anal. 2018 Nov;38(11):2478-2496
pubmed: 30053314
J Water Health. 2010 Sep;8(3):417-30
pubmed: 20375471