Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33183235›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2020

Quantitative microbial risk assessment for waterborne pathogens in a wastewater treatment plant and its receiving surface water body.

Joshua Mbanga, Akebe Luther King Abia, Daniel Gyamfi Amoako, Sabiha Y Essack

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Occurrence ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  3. Eco-Friendly Synthesis ofBioinorganic chemistry and applications · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Greywater Reuse: Contaminant Profile, Health Implications, and Sustainable Solutions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Occupational Health Risk Assessment for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Kanpur, India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua MbangaAntimicrobial Research Unit, College of Health Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa. joshmbanga@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6592-2338
Akebe Luther King AbiaAntimicrobial Research Unit, College of Health Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.
Daniel Gyamfi AmoakoAntimicrobial Research Unit, College of Health Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.
Sabiha Y EssackAntimicrobial Research Unit, College of Health Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.
University of KwaZulu-Natal · ZANational University of Science and Technology · ZW

Funding

National Research Foundation 106063National Research Foundation 98342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to safe water for drinking and domestic activities remains a challenge in emerging economies like South Africa, forcing resource-limited communities to use microbiologically polluted river water for personal and household purposes, posing a public health risk. This study quantified bacterial contamination and the potential health hazards that wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) workers and communities may face after exposure to waterborne pathogenic bacteria in a WWTP and its associated surface water, respectively.

resultsEscherichia coli (Colilert®-18/ Quanti-Tray® 2000) and enterococci (Enterolert®/ Quanti-Tray® 2000) were quantified and definitively identified by real-time polymerase chain reaction targeting the uidA and tuf genes, respectively. An approximate beta-Poisson dose-response model was used to estimate the probability of infection (Pi) with pathogenic E. coli. Mean E. coli concentration ranged from 2.60E+ 02/100 mL to 4.84E+ 06/100 mL; enterococci ranged from 2.60E+ 02/100 mL to 3.19E+ 06/100 mL across all sampled sites. Of the 580 E. coli isolates obtained from this study, 89.1% were intestinal, and 7.6% were extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli. The 579 enterococci obtained were 50.4% E. faecalis (50.4%), 31.4% E. faecium, 3.5%, E. casseliflavus and 0.7% E. gallinarum. The community health risk stemming from the use of the water for recreational and domestic purposes revealed a greater health risk (Pi) from the ingestion of 1 mL of river water from upstream (range, 55.1-92.9%) than downstream (range, 26.8-65.3%) sites. The occupational risk of infection with pathogenic E. coli for workers resulting from a once-off unintentional consumption of 1 mL of water was 0% (effluent) and 23.8% (raw influent). Multiple weekly exposures of 1 mL over a year could result in a Pi of 1.2 and 100% for the effluent and influent, respectively.

conclusionOur findings reveal that there is a potentially high risk of infection for WWTP workers and communities that use river water upstream and downstream of the investigated WWTP.

Indexed as

EnterococcusEnvironmental ExposureEscherichia coliHumansRisk AssessmentRiversSouth AfricaWastewaterWater PurificationWastewaterEnterococcusEscherichia coliQuantitative microbial risk assessmentWastewater treatment plants

Identifiers

PMID33183235
PMCPMC7663859
OpenAlexW3106254731

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.