Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31841549›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Quantitative assessment of fecal contamination in multiple environmental sample types in urban communities in Dhaka, Bangladesh using SaniPath microbial approach.

Nuhu Amin, Mahbubur Rahman, Suraja Raj, Shahjahan Ali, Jamie Green, Shimul Das, Solaiman Doza, Momenul Haque Mondol, Yuke Wang, Mohammad Aminul Islam and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Antimicrobial ResistantInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Bangladesh: Opportunities and challenges.Current opinion in environmental science & health · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: Challenges for developing countries.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
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

16 authors.

Nuhu AminInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-7131-6163
Mahbubur RahmanInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Suraja RajCenter for Global Safe Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Shahjahan AliInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Jamie GreenCenter for Global Safe Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Shimul DasInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Solaiman DozaInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Momenul Haque MondolInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Yuke WangCenter for Global Safe Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Mohammad Aminul IslamLaboratory Sciences and Services Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mahbub-Ul AlamInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Tarique Md Nurul HudaInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sabrina HaqueWater Global Practice, The World Bank, Washington DC, United States of America.
Leanne UnicombInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
George JosephWater Global Practice, The World Bank, Washington DC, United States of America.
Christine L MoeCenter for Global Safe Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid urbanization has led to a growing sanitation crisis in urban areas of Bangladesh and potential exposure to fecal contamination in the urban environment due to inadequate sanitation and poor fecal sludge management. Limited data are available on environmental fecal contamination associated with different exposure pathways in urban Dhaka. We conducted a cross-sectional study to explore the magnitude of fecal contamination in the environment in low-income, high-income, and transient/floating neighborhoods in urban Dhaka. Ten samples were collected from each of 10 environmental compartments in 10 different neighborhoods (4 low-income, 4 high-income and 2 transient/floating neighborhoods). These 1,000 samples were analyzed with the IDEXX-Quanti-Tray technique to determine most-probable-number (MPN) of E. coli. Samples of open drains (6.91 log10 MPN/100 mL), surface water (5.28 log10 MPN/100 mL), floodwater (4.60 log10 MPN/100 mL), produce (3.19 log10 MPN/serving), soil (2.29 log10 MPN/gram), and street food (1.79 log10 MPN/gram) had the highest mean log10 E. coli contamination compared to other samples. The contamination concentrations did not differ between low-income and high-income neighborhoods for shared latrine swabs, open drains, municipal water, produce, and street foodsamples. E. coli contamination levels were significantly higher (p <0.05) in low-income neighborhoods compared to high-income for soil (0.91 log10 MPN/gram, 95% CI, 0.39, 1.43), bathing water (0.98 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 0.41, 1.54), non-municipal water (0.64 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 0.24, 1.04), surface water (1.92 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 1.44, 2.40), and floodwater (0.48 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 0.03, 0.92) samples. E. coli contamination were significantly higher (p<0.05) in low-income neighborhoods compared to transient/floating neighborhoods for drain water, bathing water, non-municipal water and surface water. Future studies should examine behavior that brings people into contact with the environment and assess the extent of exposure to fecal contamination in the environment through multiple pathways and associated risks.

Indexed as

BangladeshCross-Sectional StudiesEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental PollutionEscherichia coliFecesFood ContaminationHumansPovertyResidence CharacteristicsSanitationSoilSoil MicrobiologyUrbanizationWaterWater MicrobiologySoilWater

Identifiers

PMID31841549
PMCPMC6913925

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.