Do Sanitation Improvements Reduce Fecal Contamination of Water, Hands, Food, Soil, and Flies? Evidence from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Rural Bangladesh
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interventions providing basic sanitation services might not be able to sufficiently reduce faecal environmental contamination.
“Interventions providing basic sanitation services might not be able to sufficiently reduce faecal environmental contamination.96, 97, 98, 99”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Freeman, M. C., Stocks, M. E., Cumming, O., Jeandron, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Wolf, J., Prüss‐Ustün, A., Bonjour, S., Hunter, P. R., Fewtrell, L., et al. (2014) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/tmi.12339 · Cited by 524 · see citing works
Review: Domestic hygiene and diarrhoea – pinpointing the problem
Curtis, V., Cairncross, S., & Yonli, R. (2000) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3156.2000.00512.x · Cited by 398 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wolf, J., Hubbard, S., Brauer, M., Ambelu, A., Arnold, B. F., Bain, R., Bauza, V., Brown, J., Caruso, B. A., Clasen, T., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00937-0 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Self-citationCumming, O., Arnold, B. F., Ban, R., Clasen, T., Esteves Mills, J., Freeman, M. C., Gordon, B., Guiteras, R., Howard, G., Hunter, P. R., et al. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1410-x · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Ercumen, A., Pickering, A. J., Kwong, L. H., Mertens, A., Arnold, B. F., Benjamin-Chung, J., Hubbard, A. E., Alam, M., Sen, D., Islam, S., Rahman, M. Z., Kullmann, C., Chase, C., Ahmed, R., Parvez, S. M., Unicomb, L., Rahman, M., Ram, P. K., Clasen, T., Luby, S. P., & Colford, J. M.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University , , , ,
- Tufts University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- University of California System (US)
- University of California , , , ,
- International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (BD)
- World Bank (US)
- University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
- Emory University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2018-09-26
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 12089-12097
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- PMC
- PMC6222553
- OpenAlex
- W2893251004
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 4.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPPGD759)
- World Bank Group (NA)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
- Keywords
- sanitation improvement, fecal contamination, Escherichia coli, fecal indicator bacteria, hand washing, water treatment, household water quality, food contamination, soil contamination, flies, open defecation, rural Bangladesh
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bangladesh, Child, Child, Preschool, Diptera, Escherichia coli, Escherichia coli Infections, Feces, Hand Disinfection, Humans, Sanitation, Soil
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review