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.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Yuke, Mairinger Wolfgang, Raj Suraja J, Yakubu Habib, Siesel Casey, Green Jamie, Durry Sarah, Joseph George, Rahman Mahbubur, Amin Nuhu, Hassan Md Zahidul, Wicken James, Dourng Dany, Larbi Eugene, Adomako Lady Asantewa B, Senayah Ato Kwamena, Doe Benjamin, Buamah Richard, Tetteh-Nortey Joshua Nii Noye, Kang Gagandeep, Karthikeyan Arun, Roy Sheela, Brown Joe, Muneme Bacelar, Sene Seydina O, Tuffuor Benedict, Mugambe Richard K, Bateganya Najib Lukooya, Surridge Trevor, Ndashe Grace Mwanza, Ndashe Kunda, Ban Radu, Schrecongost Alyse, Moe Christine L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Assess and compare risk of exposure to fecal contamination via multiple pathways in ten cities.
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: 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: 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.