| Literature DB >> 26867519 |
Alexandra V Kulinkina1, Venkat R Mohan2, Mark R Francis3, Deepthi Kattula3, Rajiv Sarkar3, Jeanine D Plummer4, Honorine Ward3,5, Gagandeep Kang3, Vinohar Balraj2, Elena N Naumova1,3.
Abstract
The study examined relationships among meteorological parameters, water quality and diarrheal disease counts in two urban and three rural sites in Tamil Nadu, India. Disease surveillance was conducted between August 2010 and March 2012; concurrently water samples from street-level taps in piped distribution systems and from household storage containers were tested for pH, nitrate, total dissolved solids, and total and fecal coliforms. Methodological advances in data collection (concurrent prospective disease surveillance and environmental monitoring) and analysis (preserving temporality within the data through time series analysis) were used to quantify independent effects of meteorological conditions and water quality on diarrheal risk. The utility of a local calendar in communicating seasonality is also presented. Piped distribution systems in the study area showed high seasonal fluctuations in water quality. Higher ambient temperature decreased and higher rainfall increased diarrheal risk with temperature being the predominant factor in urban and rainfall in rural sites. Associations with microbial contamination were inconsistent; however, disease risk in the urban sites increased with higher median household total coliform concentrations. Understanding seasonal patterns in health outcomes and their temporal links to environmental exposures may lead to improvements in prospective environmental and disease surveillance tailored to addressing public health problems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26867519 PMCID: PMC4751522 DOI: 10.1038/srep20521
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Map of the study area.
The meteorological station is located in Vellore town. The figure was created by A. Kulinkina in ArcGIS software (version 10.2.2) using data layers from ML Infomap, 124-A Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi 110 016.
Study population, diarrheal disease counts and water quality (WQ) sampling.
| Community | Houses | Population | Person-weeks of observation | Diarrheal disease count | Total taps | Sampled taps (%) | Public domain WQ samples | Private domain WQ samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaspa (U1) | 92 | 470 | 34,301 | 110 | 45 | 27 (60) | 251 | 345 |
| RNP (U2) | 68 | 382 | 27,677 | 74 | 16 | 9 (56) | 106 | 309 |
| A. Kattupadi (R1) | 39 | 189 | 14,661 | 29 | 25 | 13 (52) | 151 | 165 |
| Kattuputhur (R2) | 41 | 232 | 16,617 | 35 | 61 | 33 (54) | 391 | 168 |
| K. Pudur (R3) | 60 | 306 | 16,145 | 10 | 31 | 18 (58) | 163 | 231 |
Study parameters (Mean ± SD) summarized by urban (U) and rural (R) study sites and Tamil calendar seasons.
| TS1 (Harsh warmth) Jun 15–Aug 14 | TS2 (Dark clouds) Aug 15–Oct 14 | TS3 (Chill, cold) Oct 15–Dec 14 | TS4 (Early mist) Dec 15–Feb 14 | TS5 (Late mist) Feb 15–Apr 14 | TS6 (Light warmth) Apr 15–Jun 14 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | U/R | 30.61 ± 1.17 | 28.92 ± 0.70 | 26.20 ± 1.43 | 24.23 ± 1.16 | 28.87 ± 1.82 | 32.51 ± 1.34 |
| Rainfall (mm) | U/R | 23.05 ± 28.35 | 33.23 ± 33.65 | 40.43 ± 27.74 | 7.37 ± 20.26 | 2.99 ± 11.84 | 12.44 ± 19.94 |
| Weekly counts | U | 1.55 ± 1.37 | 2.22 ± 1.80 | 1.41 ± 1.62 | 2.94 ± 3.13 | 2.38 ± 2.99 | 1.88 ± 1.55 |
| R | 0.73 ± 0.9 | 0.89 ± 0.96 | 0.65 ± 1.06 | 1.24 ± 1.3 | 0.57 ± 0.85 | 1.25 ± 1.04 | |
| pH | U | 7.92 ± 0.27 | 7.91 ± 0.45 | 7.25 ± 0.54 | 7.94 ± 0.57 | 7.98 ± 0.37 | 7.81 ± 0.47 |
| R | 7.83 ± 0.39 | 7.83 ± 0.46 | 7.61 ± 0.45 | 7.46 ± 0.52 | 7.84 ± 0.37 | 7.53 ± 0.30 | |
| NO3- (ppm) | U | 17 ± 3 | 24 ± 5 | 21 ± 4 | 16 ± 4 | 16 ± 2 | 17 ± 3 |
| R | 15 ± 2 | 22 ± 4 | 27 ± 5 | 18 ± 5 | 15 ± 2 | 17 ± 2 | |
| TDS (ppm) | U | 849 ± 134 | 805 ± 92 | 689 ± 84 | 715 ± 107 | 740 ± 83 | 884 ± 149 |
| R | 713 ± 108 | 760 ± 108 | 741 ± 132 | 769 ± 133 | 744 ± 157 | 857 ± 312 | |
| TC (CFU/100mL) | U | 5,536 ± 6,450 | 5,137 ± 4,540 | 5,989 ± 3,703 | 4,998 ± 3,786 | 4,257 ± 6,381 | 2,284 ± 4,305 |
| R | 4,142 ± 4,464 | 5,673 ± 4,261 | 5,852 ± 3,733 | 4,020 ± 4,252 | 2,425 ± 3,104 | 2,200 ± 4,545 | |
| FC (CFU/100mL) | U | 213 ± 189 | 264 ± 384 | 207 ± 167 | 162 ± 170 | 413 ± 661 | 390 ± 634 |
| R | 153 ± 159 | 190 ± 166 | 205 ± 182 | 108 ± 231 | 207 ± 313 | 329 ± 493 | |
| pH | U | 7.99 ± 0.25 | 7.91 ± 0.74 | 7.38 ± 0.71 | 7.36 ± 0.60 | 7.86 ± 0.20 | 8.13 ± 0.31 |
| R | 7.73 ± 0.39 | 7.77 ± 0.48 | 7.48 ± 0.52 | 7.32 ± 0.61 | 7.62 ± 0.39 | 7.56 ± 0.28 | |
| NO3- (ppm) | U | 17 ± 2 | 23 ± 3 | 20 ± 5 | 19 ± 5 | 16 ± 3 | 17 ± 2 |
| R | 16 ± 2 | 25 ± 4 | 25 ± 4 | 19 ± 4 | 16 ± 2 | 17 ± 2 | |
| TDS (ppm) | U | 867 ± 116 | 766 ± 101 | 713 ± 88 | 667 ± 81 | 836 ± 48 | 890 ± 155 |
| R | 751 ± 218 | 681 ± 145 | 739 ± 118 | 677 ± 115 | 710 ± 174 | 1,006 ± 361 | |
| TC (CFU/100mL) | U | 6,952 ± 7,345 | 6,445 ± 5,318 | 5,958 ± 3,582 | 8,594 ± 7,248 | 5,185 ± 7,203 | 4,584 ± 5,229 |
| R | 7,377 ± 6,721 | 6,677 ± 6,126 | 5,023 ± 3,842 | 4,572 ± 4,451 | 4,638 ± 5,219 | 7,830 ± 8,287 | |
| FC (CFU/100mL) | U | 197 ± 221 | 492 ± 710 | 209 ± 159 | 419 ± 675 | 715 ± 753 | 805 ± 892 |
| R | 342 ± 531 | 408 ± 705 | 152 ± 157 | 287 ± 584 | 462 ± 667 | 949 ± 938 | |
#Weekly average temperature and cumulative rainfall are presented.
Regression model specifications.
| Model | Equation | Model specifications |
|---|---|---|
| 1A | ||
| 1B | TS1 through TS5 are binary variables for Tamil season ( | |
| 2A | ||
| 2B | ||
| 3A | ||
| 3B | Interpretation of | |
| 4 | ||
| Interpretation of |
#β is equivalent to β sin (2πωt) + β cos (2πωt) + β sin (4πωt) + β cos (4πωt).
Figure 2Fitted values of the double seasonal harmonic regression models (2A,B).
Color represents study site (blue = urban; red = rural); line type represents sampling domain (solid = public tap; dashed = private household); vertical lines labeled 1 through 6 denote two-month long seasons according to the Tamil calendar: TS1–Jun to Aug, TS2–Aug to Oct, TS3–Oct to Dec, TS4–Dec to Feb, TS5–Feb to Apr, TS6–Apr to Jun.
Figure 3Q-values for the sequential WQ and diarrheal disease count models.
Color represents study site (blue = urban; red = rural); shape represents sampling domain (square = public tap; triangle = private household). An increase in Q-value (Q = (null deviance–residual deviance)/null deviance*100%) indicates improved model fit with the additional parameters contributed by each sequential model.
Results of Model 3B–Relative risk of diarrhea [RR (95% CI)] associated with 1 °C increase in weekly average temperature and 1-log10 increase in weekly cumulative rainfall, adjusted for population under observation, trend and seasonality.
| Urban | Rural | Combined | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature | 0.65 (0.55, 0.78)*** | 1.04 (0.79, 1.37) | 0.75 (0.65, 0.87)*** |
| Log10 (Rain) | 0.74 (0.55, 1.01) | 1.66 (1.11, 2.48)* | 0.97 (0.76, 1.24) |
| Temperature | 0.71 (0.60, 0.84)*** | 1.00 (0.76, 1.31) | 0.78 (0.68, 0.90)*** |
| Log10 (Rain) | 1.40 (1.08, 1.80)* | 1.82 (1.22, 2.73)** | 1.51 (1.22, 1.88)*** |
Statistical significance is indicated by ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; Q-value of the model is denoted in brackets.
Results of Model 4–Relative risk of diarrhea [RR (95% CI)] associated with median weekly water quality (WQ) parameters in the private domain, adjusted for population under observation, trend, seasonality, temperature and rainfall with no temporal lags.
| Urban | Rural | Combined | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Med pH | 0.77 (0.35, 1.71) | 0.72 (0.19, 2.68) | 1.20 (0.72, 1.99) |
| Med NO3− | 0.99 (0.91, 1.08) | 1.10 (0.95, 1.28) | 0.97 (0.92, 1.03) |
| Med TDS | 2.23 (1.12, 4.73)* | 1.18 (0.91, 1.52) | 1.15 (0.95, 1.40) |
| Med log10 (TC) | 4.25 (1.24, 14.53)* | 0.33 (0.08, 1.27) | 1.50 (0.70, 3.25) |
| Med log10 (FC) | 0.32 (0.18, 0.59)*** | 0.99 (0.49, 2.01) | 0.74 (0.52, 1.04) |
| Med pH | 1.03 (0.52, 2.05) | 0.64 (0.18, 2.25) | 1.42 (0.89, 2.26) |
| Med NO3− | 0.95 (0.89, 1.01) | 1.13 (0.98, 1.31) | 0.96 (0.91, 1.01) |
| Med TDS# | 1.53 (0.94, 2.50) | 1.17 (0.95, 1.45) | 1.14 (0.96, 1.34) |
| Med log10 (TC) | 3.74 (1.45, 9.63)** | 0.21 (0.07, 0.67)** | 1.18 (0.62, 2.25) |
| Med log10 (FC) | 0.41 (0.25, 0.67)*** | 1.11 (0.60, 2.04) | 0.81 (0.59, 1.12) |
#For each parameter, the relative risk associated with a 1 unit increase is presented with the exception of TDS (100 ppm is used). Statistical significance is indicated by ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; Q-value of the model is denoted in brackets.