| Literature DB >> 28599671 |
Save Kumwenda1,2, Chisomo Msefula3, Wilfred Kadewa4, Yohane Diness3, Charles Kato5, Tracy Morse6,7, Bagrey Ngwira6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that households using sludge from human excreta for agriculture are at an increased risk of soil transmitted helminths. However, while use of ecological sanitation (EcoSan) latrines is increasing in most African countries including Malawi, few studies have been done to check whether use of such sludge could potentially increase the prevalence of helminthic infections among household members as a results of exposure to faecal sludge/compared to use of traditional latrines.Entities:
Keywords: Ascaris lumbricoides; EcoSan; Human faecal matter and risk; Pit latrines; Soil transmitted helminths
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28599671 PMCID: PMC5466731 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-017-2519-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Description of study areas
| Characteristic | Blantyre (urban and rural) | Chikwawa (rural) |
|---|---|---|
| Area, km2 [ | 2, 012 | 4, 755 |
| Population [ | 1, 239, 648 | 518, 287 |
| Elevation, m [ | 1, 001–1, 500 | 51–100 |
| Temperature, °C (average: min–max) [ | 9.9–39.5 | 10–45.6 |
| Rainfall, mm (average: min–max) [ | 0–142.7 | 0–86.4 |
Number of latrines sampled from each location
| District | Location/village | EcoSan latrines | Traditional latrines | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blantyre | Chemusa | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| Angelo Govea | 13 | 0 | 13 | |
| Chilomoni | 11 | 20 | 31 | |
| Lirangwe | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Chikwawa | Ng’ombe | 14 | 0 | 14 |
| Zimola | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
| Kaputeni | 4 | 60 | 64 | |
| Tomali | 0 | 15 | 15 | |
| Total | 61 | 95 | 156 |
Demographic characteristics of respondents
| Characteristic | Category | EcoSan latrines | Traditional pit latrines | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 21 (34.4%) | 37 (38.9%) | 0.57 |
| Female | 40 (65.6%) | 58 (61.1%) | ||
| Marital status | Married | 50 (82.0%) | 70 (73.7%) | 0.43 |
| Single | 4 (6.6%) | 8 (8.5%) | ||
| Divorced | 4 (6.6%) | 7 (7.4%) | ||
| Widowed | 3 (4.9%) | 10 (10.5%) | ||
| Average household income per month | <$7.00 | 3 (4.9%) | 13 (13.7%) | 0.001* |
| $7–$13.00 | 5 (8.2%) | 23 (24.2%) | ||
| >$13.00–$27.00 | 9 (14.8%) | 24 (25.3%) | ||
| >$27.00 | 44 (72.1%) | 35 (36.8%) | ||
| Education | No formal education | 2 (3.3%) | 15 (15.8%) | 0.004* |
| Primary | 23 (37.7%) | 47 (49.5%) | ||
| Secondary | 31 (50.8%) | 24 (25.3%) | ||
| Tertiary | 5 (8.2%) | 9 (9.5%) |
* Presence of a significant relationship using Chi square test
Prevalence of helminthes by latrine type
| Name of helminth | EcoSan latrines | Traditional pit latrines | Total | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STH | ||||
| | 38 (62.3%) | 41 (43.2%) | 79 (50.6%) | 0.02* |
| Hookworms | 34 (55.7%) | 79 (83.2%) | 113 (72.4%) | 0.001* |
| | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (1.1%) | 3 (1.9%) | 0.323 |
| | 20 (32.8%) | 43 (45.3%) | 63 (40.4%) | 0.121 |
| Other helminths | ||||
| | 3 (5.0%) | 15 (15.8%) | 18 (11.5%) | 0.038* |
| | 1 (1.6%) | 5 (5.3%) | 6 (3.8%) | 0.251 |
| At least one helminth | 51 (83.6%) | 83 (87.4%) | 134 (85.9%) | 0.051 |
* Presence of a significant relationship using Chi Square test
Mean concentration of helminths measured in helminths per gram (95% CI) by latrine type
| Name of helminth | EcoSan latrines | Traditional pit latrines | Total | P value* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STH | ||||
| | 3.3 (2.0–4.5) | 4.7 (1.8–7.6) | 4.1 (2.3–5.9) | 0.43 |
| Hookworms | 19.6 (11.4–27.9) | 21.1 (12.8–29.4) | 20.5 (14.6–26.5) | 0.80 |
| | 0.1 (0–0.3) | 0.02 (0.0–0.06) | 0.06 (0.02–0.14) | 0.17 |
| | 3.0 (1.2–4.9) | 4.7 (0.8–8.6) | 4.0 (1.6–6.5) | 0.52 |
| Other helminths | ||||
| | 0.2 (0.0–0.4) | 0.6 (0.2–0.9) | 0.4 (0.2–0.6) | 0.11 |
| | 0.2 (0–0.5) | 0.1 (0.0–0.2) | 0.1 (0.0–0.3) | 0.25 |
| Overall | 26.4 (16.5–36.3) | 31.2 (19.1–43.2) | 29.3 (21.1–37.6) | 0.57 |
* P value for the difference in means between EcoSan and traditional pit latrines using t test
Concentration of helminths per gram of faecal sludge in EcoSan and traditional pit latrines by district
| Name of helminth | Blantyre District | Chikwawa District | P value* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EcoSan latrines | Traditional pit latrines | EcoSan | Traditional pit latrines | ||
| STH | |||||
| | 3.9 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 5.1 | 0.46 |
| Hookworms | 26.2 | 19.7 | 8.0 | 21.5 | 0.81 |
| | 0.1 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.18 |
| | 4.7 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 5.2 | 0.53 |
| Other helminths | |||||
| | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.11 |
| | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.67 |
| Overall (all helminths) | 35.1 | 26.0 | 11.0 | 32.6 | 0.58 |
* P value for the mean concentration of helminths by district using t test
Fig. 1Box plot for concentration of helminths in faecal sludge. The graph gives a picture of how the helminths were distributed in traditional pit and EcoSan latrines in Blantyre and Chikwawa
Total number of helminths types present in a latrine faecal sample
| Total number of helminths types present in a latrine faecal sample | EcoSan latrines (%) | Traditional pit latrines (%) | Total number of latrines (% of total) |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | 10 (45.5) | 12 (54.5) | 22 (14.1) |
| One | 22 (45.8) | 26 (54.2) | 48 (30.8) |
| Two | 13 (34.2) | 25 (65.8) | 38 (24.4) |
| Three | 13 (37.1) | 22 (62.9) | 35 (22.4) |
| Four | 3 (27.3) | 8 (72.7) | 11 (7.1) |
| Five | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 2 (1.3) |
| Six | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Total | 61 | 95 | 156 |