Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21632095›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2011

Impact of population and latrines on fecal contamination of ponds in rural Bangladesh.

Peter S K Knappett, Veronica Escamilla, Alice Layton, Larry D McKay, Michael Emch, Daniel E Williams, R Huq, J Alam, Labony Farhana, Brian J Mailloux and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Riverbed Sediments as Reservoirs of MultipleJournal of environmental and public health · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Importance of Reversible Attachment in PredictingAdvances in water resources · 2014
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Peter S K KnappettDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1410, USA. peter.knappett@helmholtz-muenchen.de
Veronica Escamilla
Alice Layton
Larry D McKay
Michael Emch
Daniel E Williams
R Huq
J Alam
Labony Farhana
Brian J Mailloux
Andy Ferguson
Gary S Sayler
Kazi M Ahmed
Alexander van Geen

Funding

Carolina Population CenterR24HD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MORGAN, SAMUEL PHILIP · 2005 to 2014
$10.0M
Does ArsenicMitigation in BangladeshRaiseExposure to Bacterial and ViralPathogensR01TW008066 · FIC · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI VAN GEEN, ALEXANDER FRANS · 2007 to 2010
$1.7M
FIC NIH HHS 5 R01 TW008066FIC NIH HHS R01 TW008066NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A majority of households in Bangladesh rely on pond water for hygiene. Exposure to pond water fecal contamination could therefore still contribute to diarrheal disease despite the installation of numerous tubewells for drinking. The objectives of this study are to determine the predominant sources (human or livestock) of fecal pollution in ponds and examine the association between local population, latrine density, latrine quality and concentrations of fecal bacteria and pathogens in pond water. Forty-three ponds were analyzed for E. coli using culture-based methods and E. coli, Bacteroidales and adenovirus using quantitative PCR. Population and sanitation spatial data were collected and measured against pond fecal contamination. Humans were the dominant source of fecal contamination in 79% of the ponds according to Bacteroidales measurements. Ponds directly receiving latrine effluent had the highest concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria (up to 10⁶ Most Probable Number (MPN) of culturable E. coli per 100 mL). Concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria correlated with population surveyed within a distance of 30-70 m (p<0.05) and total latrines surveyed within 50-70 m (p<0.05). Unsanitary latrines (visible effluent or open pits) within the pond drainage basin were also significantly correlated to fecal indicator concentrations (p<0.05). Water in the vast majority of the surveyed ponds contained unsafe levels of fecal contamination attributable primarily to unsanitary latrines, and to lesser extent, to sanitary latrines and cattle. Since the majority of fecal pollution is derived from human waste, continued use of pond water could help explain the persistence of diarrheal disease in rural South Asia.

Indexed as

FecesAdenoviridaeBacteriaBangladeshEnvironmental MonitoringFresh WaterHumansRisk AssessmentRural PopulationSewageWater MicrobiologyWater PollutantsWater SupplySewageWater Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID21632095
PMCPMC3150537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.