Multiple pathogen contamination of water, hands, and fomites in rural Nepal and the effect of WaSH interventions

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Sital Uprety , Isaac Ngo , Marika Maggos , Bipin Dangol , Samendra P. Sherchan , Joanna L. Shisler , Mohan Amarasiri , Daisuke Sano , Thanh H. Nguyen
{"title":"Multiple pathogen contamination of water, hands, and fomites in rural Nepal and the effect of WaSH interventions","authors":"Sital Uprety ,&nbsp;Isaac Ngo ,&nbsp;Marika Maggos ,&nbsp;Bipin Dangol ,&nbsp;Samendra P. Sherchan ,&nbsp;Joanna L. Shisler ,&nbsp;Mohan Amarasiri ,&nbsp;Daisuke Sano ,&nbsp;Thanh H. Nguyen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijheh.2024.114341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WaSH) interventions are the most effective in reducing diarrheal disease severity and prevalence. However, very few studies have investigated the effectiveness of WaSH intervention in reducing pathogen presence and concentration. In this study, we employed a microfluidic PCR approach to quantify twenty bacterial pathogens in water (n = 360), hands (n = 180), and fomite (n = 540) samples collected in rural households of Nepal to assess the pathogen exposures and the effect of WaSH intervention on contamination and exposure rates. The pathogen load and the exposure pathways for each pathogen in intervention and control villages were compared to understand the effects of WaSH intervention. Pathogens were detected in higher frequency and concentration from fomites samples, toilet handle (21.42%; 5.4,0 95%CI: mean log<sub>10</sub> of 4.69, 5.96), utensils (23.5%; 5.47, 95%CI: mean log<sub>10</sub> of 4.77, 6.77), and water vessels (22.42%; 5.53, 95%CI: mean log<sub>10</sub> of 4.79, 6.60) as compared to cleaning water (14.36%; 5.05, 95%CI: mean log<sub>10</sub> of 4.36, 5.89), drinking water (14.26%; 4.37, 85%CI: mean log<sub>10</sub> of 4.37, 5.87), and hand rinse samples (16.92%; 5.49, 95%CI: mean log<sub>10</sub> of 4.77, 6.39). There was no clear evidence that WaSH intervention reduced overall pathogen contamination in any tested pathway. However, we observed a significant reduction (p &lt; 0.05) in the prevalence, but not concentration, of some target pathogens, including Enterococcus spp. in the intervention village compared to the control village for water and hands rinse samples. Conversely, no significant reduction in target pathogen concentration was observed for water and hand rinse samples. In swab samples, there was a reduction mostly in pathogen concentration rather than pathogen prevalence, highlighting that a reduction in pathogen prevalence was not always accompanied by a reduction in pathogen concentration. This study provides an understanding of WaSH intervention on microbe concentrations. Such data could help with better planning of intervention activities in the future.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13994,"journal":{"name":"International journal of hygiene and environmental health","volume":"257 ","pages":"Article 114341"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463924000221/pdfft?md5=04a88e51f8fda9625dc1cdfc2fb917ca&pid=1-s2.0-S1438463924000221-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of hygiene and environmental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463924000221","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WaSH) interventions are the most effective in reducing diarrheal disease severity and prevalence. However, very few studies have investigated the effectiveness of WaSH intervention in reducing pathogen presence and concentration. In this study, we employed a microfluidic PCR approach to quantify twenty bacterial pathogens in water (n = 360), hands (n = 180), and fomite (n = 540) samples collected in rural households of Nepal to assess the pathogen exposures and the effect of WaSH intervention on contamination and exposure rates. The pathogen load and the exposure pathways for each pathogen in intervention and control villages were compared to understand the effects of WaSH intervention. Pathogens were detected in higher frequency and concentration from fomites samples, toilet handle (21.42%; 5.4,0 95%CI: mean log10 of 4.69, 5.96), utensils (23.5%; 5.47, 95%CI: mean log10 of 4.77, 6.77), and water vessels (22.42%; 5.53, 95%CI: mean log10 of 4.79, 6.60) as compared to cleaning water (14.36%; 5.05, 95%CI: mean log10 of 4.36, 5.89), drinking water (14.26%; 4.37, 85%CI: mean log10 of 4.37, 5.87), and hand rinse samples (16.92%; 5.49, 95%CI: mean log10 of 4.77, 6.39). There was no clear evidence that WaSH intervention reduced overall pathogen contamination in any tested pathway. However, we observed a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in the prevalence, but not concentration, of some target pathogens, including Enterococcus spp. in the intervention village compared to the control village for water and hands rinse samples. Conversely, no significant reduction in target pathogen concentration was observed for water and hand rinse samples. In swab samples, there was a reduction mostly in pathogen concentration rather than pathogen prevalence, highlighting that a reduction in pathogen prevalence was not always accompanied by a reduction in pathogen concentration. This study provides an understanding of WaSH intervention on microbe concentrations. Such data could help with better planning of intervention activities in the future.

尼泊尔农村地区水、手和飞沫的多重病原体污染以及 WaSH 干预措施的效果
水、环境卫生和个人卫生(WaSH)干预措施是降低腹泻疾病严重程度和流行率的最有效方法。然而,很少有研究调查了 WaSH 干预措施在减少病原体存在和浓度方面的效果。在这项研究中,我们采用微流控 PCR 方法对尼泊尔农村家庭采集的水(n = 360)、手(n = 180)和粪便(n = 540)样本中的 20 种细菌病原体进行了定量分析,以评估病原体暴露情况以及 WaSH 干预措施对污染和暴露率的影响。对干预村和对照村的病原体负荷和每种病原体的暴露途径进行比较,以了解WaSH干预措施的效果。从粪便样本、马桶把手(21.42%;5.4,0 95%CI:平均 log10 为 4.69,5.96)、餐具(23.5%;5.47,95%CI:平均 log10 为 4.77,6.77)和水容器(22.42%;5.53,95%CI:平均 log10 为 4.77,6.77)中检测到病原体的频率和浓度较高。53,95%CI:平均 log10 为 4.79,6.60),而清洁水(14.36%;5.05,95%CI:平均 log10 为 4.36,5.89)、饮用水(14.26%;4.37,85%CI:平均 log10 为 4.37,5.87)和洗手液样本(16.92%;5.49,95%CI:平均 log10 为 4.77,6.39)。没有明确证据表明,WaSH 干预措施减少了任何测试途径中的总体病原体污染。然而,我们观察到,与对照村相比,干预村的水和漱手液样本中包括肠球菌属在内的一些目标病原体的流行率(p < 0.05)明显下降,但浓度没有下降。相反,水和漱手液样本中的目标病原体浓度没有明显降低。在拭子样本中,降低的主要是病原体浓度,而不是病原体流行率,这说明病原体流行率的降低并不总是伴随着病原体浓度的降低。这项研究让人们了解了WaSH干预措施对微生物浓度的影响。这些数据有助于更好地规划未来的干预活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health serves as a multidisciplinary forum for original reports on exposure assessment and the reactions to and consequences of human exposure to the biological, chemical, and physical environment. Research reports, short communications, reviews, scientific comments, technical notes, and editorials will be peer-reviewed before acceptance for publication. Priority will be given to articles on epidemiological aspects of environmental toxicology, health risk assessments, susceptible (sub) populations, sanitation and clean water, human biomonitoring, environmental medicine, and public health aspects of exposure-related outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信