Loading…

Do Sanitation Improvements Reduce Fecal Contamination of Water, Hands, Food, Soil, and Flies? Evidence from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Rural Bangladesh

Sanitation improvements have had limited effectiveness in reducing the spread of fecal pathogens into the environment. We conducted environmental measurements within a randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh that implemented individual and combined water treatment, sanitation, handwashing (WSH) an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental science & technology 2018-11, Vol.52 (21), p.12089-12097
Main Authors: Ercumen, Ayse, Pickering, Amy J, Kwong, Laura H, Mertens, Andrew, Arnold, Benjamin F, Benjamin-Chung, Jade, Hubbard, Alan E, Alam, Mahfuja, Sen, Debashis, Islam, Sharmin, Rahman, Md. Zahidur, Kullmann, Craig, Chase, Claire, Ahmed, Rokeya, Parvez, Sarker Masud, Unicomb, Leanne, Rahman, Mahbubur, Ram, Pavani K, Clasen, Thomas, Luby, Stephen P, Colford, John M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Sanitation improvements have had limited effectiveness in reducing the spread of fecal pathogens into the environment. We conducted environmental measurements within a randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh that implemented individual and combined water treatment, sanitation, handwashing (WSH) and nutrition interventions (WASH Benefits, NCT01590095). Following approximately 4 months of intervention, we enrolled households in the trial’s control, sanitation and combined WSH arms to assess whether sanitation improvements, alone and coupled with water treatment and handwashing, reduce fecal contamination in the domestic environment. We quantified fecal indicator bacteria in samples of drinking and ambient waters, child hands, food given to young children, courtyard soil and flies. In the WSH arm, Escherichia coli prevalence in stored drinking water was reduced by 62% (prevalence ratio = 0.38 (0.32, 0.44)) and E. coli concentration by 1-log (Δlog10 = −0.88 (−1.01, −0.75)). The interventions did not reduce E. coli along other sampled pathways. Ambient contamination remained high among intervention households. Potential reasons include noncommunity-level sanitation coverage, child open defecation, animal fecal sources, or naturalized E. coli in the environment. Future studies should explore potential threshold effects of different levels of community sanitation coverage on environmental contamination.
ISSN:0013-936X
1520-5851
1520-5851
DOI:10.1021/acs.est.8b02988