The aim of this study was to compare the water quality of piped-to-plot source water with point-of-drinking water in the households of a low-income urban area in Bangladesh. A total of 430 low-income households and 78 communal sources connected to these households were selected from the East Arichpur area of Dhaka. The water samples were collected from point-of-drinking vessels (household members’ preferred drinking vessels i.e., a mug, glass, or bottle) in households and from linked sources at six-week intervals between September 2014 and December 2015. Water samples were processed using standard membrane filtration and culture methods to quantify E. coli. Analysis of paired data from source and point-of-drinking water collected on the same day showed that fecal contamination increased from source to point-of-drinking water in the households in 51% (626/1236) of samples. Comparison between bottles vs. other wide-mouth vessels (i.e., glasses, mugs, jugs) showed significantly lower odds (p = 0.000, OR = 0.58, (0.43–0.78)) of fecal contamination compared to other drinking vessels. The findings suggest that recontamination and post-treatment contamination at the point of drinking play a significant role in water contamination in households. Hygiene education efforts in the future should target the promotion of narrow-mouth drinking vessels to reduce contamination.
This study aimed to investigate the origin of diverse pathotypes of E. coli, isolated from communal water sources and from the actual drinking water vessel at the point-of-drinking inside households in a low-income urban community in Arichpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh, using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Forty-six percent (57/125, CI 95%: 41−58) of the isolates in the point-of-drinking water and 53% (55/103, CI 95%: 45−64) of the isolates in the source water were diarrheagenic E. coli. Among the pathotypes, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) was the most common, 81% (46/57) of ETEC was found in the point-of-drinking water and 87% (48/55) was found in the communal source water. Phylogenetic group B1, which is predominant in animals, was the most frequently found isolate in both the point-of-drinking water (50%, 91/181) and in the source (50%, 89/180) water. The phylogenetic subgroup B23, usually of human origin, was more common in the point-of-drinking water (65%, 13/20) than in the source water (35%, 7/20). Our findings suggest that non-human mammals and birds played a vital role in fecal contamination for both the source and point-of-drinking water. Addressing human sanitation without a consideration of fecal contamination from livestock sources will not be enough to prevent drinking-water contamination and thus will persist as a greater contributor to diarrheal pathogens.
The microbiological quality of water is usually assessed by fecal coliform bacteria, and the presence of E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination is widely recommended by international guidelines. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of diarrheagenic pathogens, in both public and personal domain water sources and examine the reliance on the WHO drinking water risk assessment guidelines. This study was conducted in a low-income urban community in Dhaka, Bangladesh between September 2014 and October 2015. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to detect the marker and virulence genes of Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella species, and Campylobacter species, and the culture method was employed for the quantitative assessment of E. coli. According to the WHO guidelines, 48% of the public domain source water and 21% of the personal domain point-of-drinking water were classified in the low-risk group, i.e., 0 CFU of E. coli/100 mL. However, when using PCR, we detected pathogens in 39% (14/36) of the point-of-drinking water samples and 65% (74/114) of the public domain water source samples classified in the low-risk group. Our study showed that relying solely on E. coli detection as a measure of water quality may overlook the presence of other pathogens in the drinking water. In addition to the culture-based method, the detection of virulence genes by PCR should also be considered to add more scrutiny to the detection of diverse types of pathogens.
Aims: The aim of this undertaken investigation was designed to determine the comparative antimicrobial potential of ethanol extract of six commonly consumed spices such as Garlic (Allium satilyvum), Ginger (Zingiber officinale), Turmeric (Curcuma longa), Cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum), Cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and Black cumin (Nigella sativa). Method: This study includes, the efficacy of individual and synergistic effect of these extracts that was tested against bacteria by agar well-diffusion method employing 100 μL spices-extract solution per well and was conducted in (Centre of Excellence Laboratory) Department of Microbiology, Primeasia University during November 2018 to April 2019. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined by the micro-broth dilution method and compared with commercial antibiotic discs such as Amoxicillin, Vancomycin, Erythromycin, Ceftriaxone, Chloramphenicol, and Ciprofloxacin. Result: According to the findings of the antibacterial assay, the ethanol extracts of the spices showed inhibitory activity against common infectious bacterial pathogens. Spice extracts have the most significant activity against B. cereus and E. coli was the least sensitive among the tested organisms. The ethanol extract had individual antibacterial activity with mean zone of inhibition 22 ± 0.5 and 20.08 ± 0.58 mm and the synergistic effect of ethanol extract had a mean zone of inhibition 30 ± 0.75 and 28.25 ± 0.9 mm against B. cereus and V. cholera, respectively, which is highly comparable to the commercial antibiotic, Ciprofloxacin (25 mm). Conclusion: The ethanol extract of indigenous spices was shown to be highly potential to be applied as an alternative of commercial drugs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.