| Literature DB >> 29424716 |
Sonia Grego1, Viswa Barani2, Meghan Hegarty-Craver1, Antony Raj3, Prasanna Perumal3, Adrian B Berg1, Colleen Archer4.
Abstract
Water quality and sanitation are inextricably linked to prevalence and control of soil-transmitted helminth infections, a public health concern in resource-limited settings. India bears a large burden of disease associated with poor sanitation. Transformative onsite sanitation technologies are being developed that feature elimination of pathogens including helminth eggs in wastewater treatment. We are conducting third-party testing of multiple sanitation technology systems in Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) India. To ensure stringent testing of the pathogen removal ability of sanitation technologies, the presence of helminth eggs in wastewater across the town of Coimbatore was assessed. Wastewater samples from existing test sites as well as desludging trucks servicing residential and non-residential septic tanks, were collected. The AmBic methodology (based on washing, sieving, sedimenting and floating) was used for helminth egg isolation. We tested 29 different source samples and found a 52% prevalence of potentially infective helminth eggs. Identification and enumeration of helminth species is reported against the septage source (private residential vs. shared toilet facility) and total solids content. Trichuris egg counts were higher than those of hookworm and Ascaris from desludging trucks, whereas hookworm egg counts were higher in fresh wastewater samples. Surprisingly, no correlation between soil transmitted helminth eggs and total solids was observed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29424716 PMCID: PMC7734373 DOI: 10.2166/wh.2017.147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Water Health ISSN: 1477-8920 Impact factor: 1.744
Figure 1Summary of helminth egg isolation methodology.
Figure 2(a) Undeveloped Ascaris sp. egg (PV); (b) Ascaris sp. egg containing necrotic larva; (c) dead (globular) Ascaris sp. egg; (d) developing hookworm sp. Egg (PV); (e) undeveloped Trichuris sp. egg (PV); (f) dead (broken wall) Hymenolepis nana egg; (g): (h). diminuta egg (PV); (i) developing Heterakis spumosa egg (PV); (j) developing mite egg; (k) Aspiculuris sp. egg (bad condition); (l) dead Trichosomoides crassicauda egg; (m) undeveloped (PV) Ascaris (top) and rotifer (bottom); (n) unknown hookworm-like, but too long, egg (top) and undeveloped mite egg (bottom). Scale bar (50 μm) for all photographs in bottom righthand corner.
Figure 3(a) Prevalence of helminth spp. eggs by individual species (n = 29). (b) Distribution of total counts of helminth spp. eggs (n = 29). (c) Distribution of counts of helminth spp. Eggs by individual species (n = 29). PP: potentially pathogenic; NP: non-pathogenic.
Figure 4(a) Average concentration of helminth spp. eggs by individual species from desludging trucks (n = 26). (b) Average intensity of helminth spp. eggs by individual species collected from sumps (n = 3). D = dead; PV = potentially viable.
Figure 5(a) Prevalence of helminth spp. eggs from desludging trucks by septage sources (n = 26). (b) Average concentration (excluding 0 counts) of helminth spp. eggs from desludging trucks by septage source (n = 26). PV = potentially viable; D = dead.
Figure 6(a) Prevalence of helminth spp. eggs from septage with different solids content (n = 26). (b) Average concentration and maximum counts/L in septage by solids content (n = 26). PV = potentially viable; D = dead.