Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30048542›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Assessment of recommended approaches for containment and safe handling of human excreta in emergency settings.

Diogo Trajano Gomes da Silva, Edgard Dias, James Ebdon, Huw Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Diogo Trajano Gomes da SilvaEnvironment and Public Health Research Group, School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Edgard DiasDepartment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
James EbdonEnvironment and Public Health Research Group, School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Huw TaylorEnvironment and Public Health Research Group, School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8840-3538
University of Brighton · GBUniversidade Federal de Juiz de Fora · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ebola and cholera treatment centres (ETC and CTC) generate considerable quantities of excreta that can further the transmission of disease amongst patients and health workers. Therefore, approaches for the safe handling, containment and removal of excreta within such settings are needed to minimise the likelihood of onward disease transmission. This study compared the performance and suitability of three chlorine-based approaches (0.5% HTH, NaDCC and NaOCl (domestic bleach)) and three lime-based approaches (10%, 20% and 30% Ca(OH)2). The experiments followed recent recommendations for Ebola Treatment Centres. Three excreta matrices containing either raw municipal wastewater, or raw municipal wastewater plus 10% or 20% (w/v) added faecal sludge, were treated in 14 litre buckets at a ratio of 1:10 (chlorine solutions or lime suspensions: excreta matrix). The effects of mixing versus non-mixing and increasing contact time (10 and 30 mins) were also investigated. Bacterial (faecal coliforms (FC) and intestinal enterococci (IE)) and viral (somatic coliphages (SOMPH), F+specific phages (F+PH) and Bacteroides fragilis phages (GB-124PH)) indicators were used to determine the efficacy of each approach. Lime-based approaches provided greater treatment efficacy than chlorine-based approaches, with lime (30% w/v) demonstrating the greatest efficacy (log reductions values, FC = 4.75, IE = 4.16, SOMPH = 2.85, F+PH = 5.13 and GB124PH = 5.41). There was no statistical difference in efficacy between any of the chlorine-based approaches, and the highest log reduction values were: FC = 2.90, IE = 2.36, SOMPH = 3.01, F+PH = 2.36 and GB124PH = 0.74. No statistical difference was observed with respect to contact time for any of the approaches, and no statistical differences were observed with respect to mixing for the chlorine-based approaches. However, statistically significant increases in the efficacy of some lime-based approaches were observed following mixing. These findings provide evidence and practical advice to inform safe handling and containment of excreta and ensure more effective health protection in future emergency settings.

Indexed as

Calcium CompoundsChlorineCholeraDisinfectantsDisinfectionFecesHalogenationHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansOxidesSewageSodium HypochloriteWastewaterWater MicrobiologyCalcium CompoundsChlorineDisinfectantslimeOxidesSewageSodium HypochloriteWastewater

Identifiers

PMID30048542
PMCPMC6062132
OpenAlexW2883196987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.