CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Fecal contamination and water qualityFood Safety and HygienePublic Health and Environmental Issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Occurrence of Escherichia coli and faecal coliforms in drinking water at source and household point-of-use in Rohingya camps, Bangladesh

Open access
Mahmud, Zahid Hayat, Islam, Md Shafiqul, Imran, Khan Mohammad, Hakim, Syed Adnan Ibna, Worth, Martin, Ahmed, Alvee, Hossan, Shanewaz, Haider, Maliha, Islam, Mohammad Rafiqul, Hossain, Ferdous, Johnston, Dara, Ahmed, Niyaz·2019·Gut Pathogens
DOI 10.1186/s13099-019-0333-6PMC PMC6824040
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Safe water is essential for life but unsafe for human consumption if it is contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms. An acceptable quality of water supply (adequate, safe and accessible) must be ensured to all human beings for a healthy life. Methods: We collected and analyzed a total of 12,650 drinking water samples, for the presence of Escherichia coli and faecal coliforms, from a large habitation of the displaced Rohingya population comprising of about 1.16 million people living within 4 km 2 . Results: We found that 28% (n = 893) water samples derived from tubewells were contaminated with faecal coliforms and 10.5% (n = 333) were contaminated with E. coli ; also, 73.96% (n = 4644) samples from stored household sources (at point of use—POU) were found contaminated with faecal coliforms while 34.7% (n = 2179) were contaminated with E. coli. It was observed that a higher percentage of POU samples fall in the highest risk category than that of their corresponding sources. Conclusions: From our findings, it appears that secondary contamination could be a function of very high population density and could possibly occur during collection, transportation, and storage of water due to lack of knowledge of personal and domestic hygiene. Hence, awareness campaign is necessary, and the contaminated sources should be replaced. Further, the POU water should be treated by a suitable method.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13099-019-0333-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Contamination scenario of faecal coliforms and E. coli in source and point of use water samples. a Bar diagram showing percent contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli, before decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and household (POU) water. b Box and whisker plot of log value of faecal contamination before decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. c Box and whisker plot of log value of E. coli before decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. d, e Bar diagram showing percent of risk categories of contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli, before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water
Fig. 1 Contamination scenario of faecal coliforms and E. coli in source and point of use water samples. a Bar diagram showing percent contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli, before decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and household (POU) water. b Box and whisker plot of log value of faecal contamination before decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. c Box and whisker plot of log value of E. coli before decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. d, e Bar diagram showing percent of risk categories of contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli, before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU waterCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Camp-wise contamination scenario of faecal coliforms and E. coli in source and household (POU) water samples. a Bar diagram showing percent contamination of faecal coliforms before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. b Contamination scenario of E. coli before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. 15 out of 21 camps’ data are shown in the bar diagrams
Fig. 2 Camp-wise contamination scenario of faecal coliforms and E. coli in source and household (POU) water samples. a Bar diagram showing percent contamination of faecal coliforms before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. b Contamination scenario of E. coli before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell and POU water. 15 out of 21 camps’ data are shown in the bar diagramsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Contamination scenario of faecal coliforms and E. coli in source before and after decontamination. a Image showing method of decontamination of the mouth of the tubewell by burning with alcohol. b Bar diagram showing percent of contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli, before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell. c Box and whisker plot of log value of faecal coliforms before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell. d Box and whisker plot of log value of E. coli before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell. e Image showing way of contaminating the mouth of the tubewell by unhygienic practices. f Image showing the rough surface of the tubewell mouth and inside of the tubewell mouth
Fig. 3 Contamination scenario of faecal coliforms and E. coli in source before and after decontamination. a Image showing method of decontamination of the mouth of the tubewell by burning with alcohol. b Bar diagram showing percent of contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli, before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell. c Box and whisker plot of log value of faecal coliforms before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell. d Box and whisker plot of log value of E. coli before and after decontaminating the mouth of the tubewell. e Image showing way of contaminating the mouth of the tubewell by unhygienic practices. f Image showing the rough surface of the tubewell mouth and inside of the tubewell mouthCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram showing the use of cow dung during the installation of tubewell
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram showing the use of cow dung during the installation of tubewellCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Risk categories of contamination. WHO (2011) has developed a classification and color-code scheme for E. coli colonies per 100 mL water sample which are (i) in conformity with WHO guideline—blue (0/100 mL); (ii) low risk—green (1–< 10/100 mL); (iii) intermediate risk—yellow (10–< 100/100 mL); (iv) high risk—orange (100–< 1000/100 mL); (v) very high risk—red (> 1000/100 mL)
Fig. 5 Risk categories of contamination. WHO (2011) has developed a classification and color-code scheme for E. coli colonies per 100 mL water sample which are (i) in conformity with WHO guideline—blue (0/100 mL); (ii) low risk—green (1–< 10/100 mL); (iii) intermediate risk—yellow (10–< 100/100 mL); (iv) high risk—orange (100–< 1000/100 mL); (v) very high risk—red (> 1000/100 mL)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Map of Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. a Location of Rohingya camps in the map of Bangladesh (inset). b Location of Rohingya camps in Cox’s bazar. b1–b4 correspond to detailed view of the location map(s) from b inset 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Stars denote the camps from where the drinking water samples were collected (Source: OCHA/ReliefWeb https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/71539.pdf) Accessed 19 October, 2019)
Fig. 6 Map of Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. a Location of Rohingya camps in the map of Bangladesh (inset). b Location of Rohingya camps in Cox’s bazar. b1–b4 correspond to detailed view of the location map(s) from b inset 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Stars denote the camps from where the drinking water samples were collected (Source: OCHA/ReliefWeb https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/71539.pdf) Accessed 19 October, 2019)CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Islam MM, Nuzhath T. Health risks of Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh: a call for global attention. J Glob Health. 2018;8:20309. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Mokomane M, Kasvosve I, de Melo E, Pernica JM, Goldfarb DM. The global problem of childhood diarrhoeal diseases: emerging strategies in prevention and management. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2018;5:29–43.
  3. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, et al. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5:607. · DOI
  4. Mahbub KR, Nahar A, Ahmed MM, Chakraborty A. Quality analysis of Dhaka WASA drinking water: detection and biochemical characterization of the isolates. J Environ Sci Nat Res. 2011;4:41–9.
  5. Pande G, Kwesiga B, Bwire G, Kalyebi P, Riolexus A, Matovu JKB, et al. Cholera outbreak caused by drinking contaminated water from a lakeshore water-collection site, Kasese District, south-western Uganda, June-July 2015. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0198431. · DOI
  6. Bennett SD, Lowther SA, Chingoli F, Chilima B, Kabuluzi S, Ayers TL, et al. Assessment of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in response to an outbreak of typhoid fever in Neno District, Malawi. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0193348. · DOI
  7. Nicholson KN, Neumann K, Dowling C, Sharma SE. E. coli and coliform bacteria as indicators for drinking water quality and handling of drinking water in the Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal. Environ Manag Sustain Dev. 2017;6:411–28. · DOI
  8. Wright J, Gundry S, Conroy R. Household drinking water in developing countries: a systematic review of microbiological contamination between source and point-of-use. Trop Med Int Health. 2004;9:106–17. · DOI
  9. National Research Council. Indicators for waterborne pathogens. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2004.
  10. Kuberan A, Singh AK, Kasav JB, Prasad S, Surapaneni KM, Upadhyay V, et al. Water and sanitation hygiene knowledge, attitude, and practices among household members living in rural setting of India. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2015;6:S69. · DOI
  11. Ojima M, Toshima Y, Koya E, Ara K, Tokuda H, Kawai S, et al. Hygiene measures considering actual distributions of microorganisms in Japanese households. J Appl Microbiol. 2002;93:800–9. · DOI
  12. Woroszyło C, Choi B, Profitos JH, Lee J, Garabed R, Rempala GA. Modeling household transmission dynamics: application to waterborne diarrheal disease in Central Africa. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0206418. · DOI
  13. Budeli P, Moropeng RC, Mpenyana-Monyatsi L, Momba MNB. Inhibition of biofilm formation on the surface of water storage containers using biosand zeolite silver-impregnated clay granular and silver impregnated porous pot filtration systems. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0194715. · DOI
  14. Clasen TF, Bastable A. Faecal contamination of drinking water during collection and household storage: the need to extend protection to the point of use. J Water Health. 2003;1:109–15. · DOI
  15. Fiksdal L, Maki JS, LaCroix SJ, Staley JT. Survival and detection of Bacteroides spp., prospective indicator bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985;49:148–50. · DOI
  16. Allsop K, Stickler DJ. An assessment of Bacteroides fragilis group organisms as indicators of human faecal pollution. J Appl Bacteriol. 1985;58:95–9. · DOI
  17. Ryu J-H, Beuchat LR. Biofilm formation by Escherichia coli O157: H7 on stainless steel: effect of exopolysaccharide and curli production on its resistance to chlorine. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:247–54. · DOI
  18. Escamilla V, Knappett PSK, Yunus M, Streatfield PK, Emch M. Influence of latrine proximity and type on tubewell water quality and diarrheal disease in Bangladesh. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2013;103:299–308. · DOI
  19. Rahman SH, Ahmed S, Jakariya M. Investigation of shallow tube-well water quality considering the influence of nearby latrines in a rural village of Bangladesh. IAHS Publ. 2009;20:299.
  20. Mal BC, Mishra AP. Low-cost tubewells for developing countries. Int J Dev Technol. 1986;4:197–203.
  21. Arnold BF, Colford JM Jr. Treating water with chlorine at point-of-use to improve water quality and reduce child diarrhea in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;76:354–64. · DOI
  22. World Health Organization. Preventing diarrhoea through better water, sanitation and hygiene: exposures and impacts in low-and middle-income countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
  23. Brown J, Clasen T. High adherence is necessary to realize health gains from water quality interventions. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e36735. · DOI
  24. Enger KS, Nelson KL, Rose JB, Eisenberg JNS. The joint effects of efficacy and compliance: a study of household water treatment effectiveness against childhood diarrhea. Water Res. 2013;47:1181–90. · DOI
  25. World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edition, incorporating the 1st addendum. World Health Organization; 2017.
  26. Hachich EM, Di Bari M, Christ APG, Lamparelli CC, Ramos SS, Sato MIZ. Comparison of thermotolerant coliforms and Escherichia coli densities in freshwater bodies. Braz J Microbiol. 2012;43:675–81. · DOI
  27. Mwabi JK, Mamba BB, Momba MNB. Removal of Escherichia coli and faecal coliforms from surface water and groundwater by household water treatment devices/systems: a sustainable solution for improving water quality in rural communities of the Southern African development community region. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9:139–70. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mahmud, Z. H., Islam, M. S., Imran, K. M., Hakim, S. A. I., Worth, M., Ahmed, A., Hossan, S., Haider, M., Islam, M. R., Hossain, F., Johnston, D., & Ahmed, N.
Affiliations
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (BD)
  • United Nations Children's Fund (US)
Corresponding author
Mahmud, Zahid Hayat
ORCID
Venue
Gut Pathogens
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-11-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
52-52
ISSN
1757-4749 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13099-019-0333-6
PMC
PMC6824040
OpenAlex
W2989360098
Cited by
92
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Gut Pathogens (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
unicef (BCO/PCA/2017/035-2018/001)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Public Health and Environmental Issues
Keywords
Escherichia coli, fecal coliforms, drinking water contamination, household water storage, tube wells, Rohingya refugee camps, population density, hygiene awareness, water treatment

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