Search

The objective of this paper is to determine whether deep tubewells installed through arsenic mitigation efforts in rural Bangladesh provide better drinking water microbial quality compared to shallow tubewells. We conducted a stratified random cross-sectional survey of 484 households to assess microbial contamination of deep tubewell water at source and at point of use (POU) compared to shallow tubewell water using the Compartment Bag Test. In addition, we measured storage time, distance, travel time and ownership status among both sets of users to assess deep tubewell efficacy and under what conditions they offer poorer or better water quality. Differences in tubewell characteristics were compared using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests and two-proportion Z-tests. Prevalence ratios of microbial contamination stratified by water quality, storage time and distance to tubewells and ownership were estimated using unadjusted Mantel-Haenszel tests. There was no significant difference in microbial contamination between shallow and deep tubewells at source. The presence of POU water microbial contamination in storage containers in deep tubewell households was 1.11 times the prevalence in shallow tubewell storage containers (95% CI = 0.97-1.27). Deep tubewell users stored water longer and walked significantly farther to obtain water compared to shallow tubewell users. Among deep tubewell households, those residing farther away from the source were 1.24 times as likely to drink contaminated water from storage containers compared to those located nearby (95% CI = 1.04-1.48). Our findings suggest that deep tubewells have comparable water quality to shallow tubewells at source, but increasing distance from the household exacerbates risk of microbial contamination at POU., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

One of the most important resistance mechanisms in Gram-negative bacteria today is the production of enzymes causing resistance to cephalosporin and carbapenem antibiotics. The spread of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)- and carbapenemase- producing Gram-negative bacteria is an emerging global public health problem. The aim of the present study was to (i) assess the prevalence of carbapenem-resistant bacteria (CRB) and ESBL-producing strains in sewage effluents from two major hospitals in Singapore, (ii) characterize the isolated strains and (iii) identify some of the ESBL and carbapenemase genes responsible for the resistance. CHROMagar ESBL and KPC plates were used to rapidly screen for ESBL-producing bacteria and those expressing reduced susceptibility to carbapenems, respectively. The abundance of ESBL-producers and CRB in hospital wastewater ranged between 10 3 and 10 6 CFU/mL. Out of the 66 isolates picked from ESBL and KPC plates, 95%, 82%, 82% and 76% were resistant to ceftriaxone, ceftazidime (3rd generation cephalosporin family), ertapenem and meropenem (carbapenem family), respectively. Among the resistant isolates, the most predominant taxa identified were Pseudomonas spp. (28.2%), Klebsiella spp. (28.2%), Enterobacter spp. (18.3%) and Citrobacter spp. (11.3%). PCR and sequencing analysis showed that the predominant β-lactamase genes were bla SHV (41.1%) followed by bla NDM-1 (35.6%), bla CTX (35.6%) and bla KPC (28.8%). The results of this study show a high prevalence of bacteria resistant to modern extended-spectrum cephalosporins and carbapenems and the presence of ESBL- and carbapenemase producers in hospital effluents. These findings support the need to improve management of hospital wastewater in order to minimize the spread of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms from this source., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recovery efficiencies of enteric bacteriophages (F+ RNA coliphages, somatic coliphages, and Salmonella phages) as alternative fecal indicators were determined from ground beef and chicken breast meat using amino acid eluants (glycine and threonine) and a complex eluant (3% beef extract). Levels of F+ RNA coliphages (MS2, GA, Qbeta, FI, and SP), the somatic coliphage phiX174, and three environmental isolates of Salmonella phages (isolated from raw sewage) were assayed using three respective hosts: Escherichia coli Famp, E. coli C, and Salmonella Typhimurium. When 8% polyethylene glycol and 0.1 M NaCl were used to precipitate bacteriophages eluted with five different eluants, the highest recoveries of the three phage groups were with 0.5 M threonine and 0.25 M glycine-threonine. The average recoveries of F+ RNA coliphages, somatic coliphages, and the Salmonella phages from ground beef and chicken meat were 100, 69, and 65%, respectively, with threonine (0.5 M, pH 9.0) as the eluate. Of eight market food samples tested, F+ RNA coliphages were detected in five (63%) and somatic coliphages were detected in seven (88%). The overall detection sensitivity of the method was 3 PFU/100 g of ground beef or chicken meat. Levels of bacteriophages and bacterial indicators on chicken carcass surfaces were determined at identified critical control points at a poultry plant. Through the processing steps of evisceration, washing, and chilling, the levels of F+ RNA coliphages and fecal coliforms were reduced by 1.6 and 1.9 log10 PFU or CFU/100 g, respectively. F+ RNA coliphages and perhaps other enteric bacteriophages may be effective candidate indicators for monitoring the microbiological quality of meat, poultry, and perhaps other foods during processing. The bacteriophage concentration method developed provides a simple, rapid, and practical tool for the evaluation of fecal contamination levels in ground beef and processed chicken meat.

Viruses that may be detected in foods should be considered pathogenic and treated with appropriate caution. In this discussion, specific procedures for extracting viruses from shellfish are presented for each of the major commercial species of bivalve molluscs. Other foods for which specific extraction methods are detailed include lettuce, frozen strawberries, ground beef and raw milk. Viruses that may be detected by the methods described are those which are capable of producing a perceptible effect while replicating in cultured primate cells. Both results that are apparently positive and those that are apparently negative require careful interpretation; one must be extremely skeptical if large numbers of food samples obtained at the market appear to yield viruses. The procedures that are now available have some important limitations, including inability to detect the viruses that cause most of the reported foodborne disease. Approaches to surmounting these limitations include use of serologic methods to detect viruses that do not cause perceptible effects in cell cultures and improvement of procedures for extracting all viruses from food samples.

Viruses are sometimes transmitted through foods. Hepatitis A (HA) and some viral gastroenteritides are the diseases now known to be spread most frequently in this way, but any virus from the human intestines probably could be. Bacterial indicators of fecal contamination show limited correlation with the incidence of viruses in foods, so tests to detect the viruses themselves are needed. The epidemiologic record has led to selection of shellfish (bivalve molluscs) and vegetables and fruits as foods for which test methods should be described, and ground beef and raw milk are also considered here because of the great interest they have attracted among research workers. Viruses in foods are presently detected on the basis of the infections they cause in cultured primate cells, but these cell culture methods do not permit detection of the HA virus nor the most important of the foodborne gastroenteritis viruses. Current methods of virus detection entail liquefaction of the food sample, clarification of the sample suspension, possibly concentration of the clarified food extract, and inoculation of cell cultures; a certain amount of specialized equipment is required for some of these procedures. The inclusion of the proper controls is critical to interpretation of results that are obtained.