Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41154941›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025

A Review of the Human Health Risks from Microbial Hazards in Recreational Beach Sand.

Nicola King, Margaret Leonard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Nicola KingNew Zealand Institute of Public Health and Forensic Science, Christchurch Science Centre, 27 Creyke Road, Ilam, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2496-5141
Margaret LeonardNew Zealand Institute of Public Health and Forensic Science, Christchurch Science Centre, 27 Creyke Road, Ilam, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand.

Funding

New Zealand Ministry of Health Manatū Hauora Contract number 368181-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At many recreational beaches, the health of visitors is protected through water quality monitoring programmes. However, visitors may also be exposed to microbiological pathogens in sand via ingestion, inhalation and skin contact. Microbiological pathogens that can cause human illness may be naturally found in beach sands, or introduced with people, animals or water entering the beach. The World Health Organization has recommended that recreational water safety plans consider microbial pathogens in beach sand. This review shows that a range of faecal and non-faecal pathogens can be detected in beach sand, but difficulty in determining whether exposure occurred via the sand or water means that there is insufficient evidence to link their presence with adverse human health effects. Proactively integrating beach sand testing into recreational water safety programmes will generate data to assess the impact of risk management activities. The use of faecal indicator bacteria to indicate elevated risk from faeces should be a priority where there are potential sources of contamination. This should be complemented with sanitary surveys and analyses that elucidate faecal contamination sources. The inclusion of non-faecal pathogens into monitoring programmes needs further, locally relevant justification through evidence from epidemiological studies and human health risk assessment.

Indexed as

Bathing BeachesSandWater MicrobiologyEnvironmental MonitoringFecesHumansRisk AssessmentSandbathingbeach sandfaecal indicatorpublic healthrecreational water

Identifiers

PMID41154941
PMCPMC12564084

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.