Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
K levy chile_geo_health_2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

K levy chile_geo_health_2013

  • 33 views
Published

 

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
33
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Karen Levy, PhD, MPH October 2013 Salúd Ambiental en Chile: Orientación para Futuras Investigaciones Planning for a GeoHealth Hub in Chile Agua Potable y Enfermedades Gastrointestinales en Esmeraldas, Ecuador y Atlanta, GA
  • 2. •Overview of contamination between source and point of use •Case Study from Esmeraldas, Ecuador •Case Study from Atlanta, GA Agua Potable y Enfermedades Gastrointestinales en Esmeraldas, Ecuador y Atlanta, GA
  • 3. Storing water Deterioration of water quality
  • 4. Higher water quality observed at the source than at the point of use Wright et al. 2004. Tropical Medicine & International Health 9(1): 106-117
  • 5. •Case Study from Esmeraldas, Ecuador
  • 6. Study Region
  • 7. bathing
  • 8. washing
  • 9. 1°  water  source  is   surface  water collec.ng  water
  • 10. Xt=0 Point of Use xPOU, t=1, xPOU, t=2, …xPOU, t=n Source Controlled Env’t xcontrol, t=1, xcontrol, t=2, …xcontrol, t=n
  • 11. Agua almacenado en la casa
  • 12. Muestras de agua de la fuente
  • 13. Recipientes Controles
  • 14. testing for e.coli & enterococci in the field
  • 15.     N   Enterococci CFU/100mL   E.coli CFU/100mL Source 59 227.9 227.1 (139.5 – 372.4) (144.6-356.9) Household 105 103.7 113.4 (70.7-152.1) (80.8-159.0) Control 105 80.8 83.8 (54.3-120.1) (57.8-121.5) Contamination: Source > Point of Use Contaminación Observada
  • 16. Paired log differences: Natural attenuation = Source – Control In-home attenuation = Source – Household In-home recontamination = Household - Control Enterococci E.coli (GEE regressions adjust for clustering by paired household samples, and to account for autocorrelation between sampling days) n=105
  • 17. Findings Reductions of indicator organisms between source and POU… …followed by recontamination in ~50% of households Levy et al. 2008. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(11): 1533-1540. This suggests the need to consider both initial water quality conditions and recontamination
  • 18. •Case Study from Atlanta, GA
  • 19. • Does water degradation in the distribution system contribute to sporadic GI illness?
  • 20. Source: Besner et al. 2011 Water Research 45: 961-979
  • 21. Source: Besner et al. 2011 Water Research 45: 961-979 ER visits
  • 22. Gastrointestinal Disease Data • 41 hospitals in Metro Atlanta • 4.4 million ED records • 254,760 GI illness records (based on ICD-9 codes) • Non-injury visits = comparison group • Address + zip-code data for majority of records
  • 23. Water Utility Data • Hydraulic Models • Utility Coverage Areas • Water Residence Time from plant to node (estimated through simulations of water flow through the distribution system)
  • 24. Source: Besner et al. 2011 Water Research 45: 961-979 Water Residence Time ER visits
  • 25. Utility 1 Utility 2 WRT: short 6.8 /intermediate 22.0 / long 47.4 hrs WRT: short 10.1 / intermediate 33.4 / long 74.4 hrs WRT: short 5.9 / intermediate 18.5 / long 60.4 hrs
  • 26. ControlVariables (Census Data & ED records) • Age • Season • Year • Hospital • Distance from zip code centroid to hospital • Zip code median income • Zip code percent minority • Medicaid payment status • Age*Medicaid • Age*Distance to hospital • Medicaid*Distance to hospital
  • 27. OddsRatio Based onTinker et al. 2009. JWH 7(2): 332-343 .85 .85 .85.95 .95 .951.05 1.05 1.051.15 1.15 1.150 0 0.5 .5 .51 1 11.5 1.5 1.52 2 20 0 0.5 .5 .51 1 11.5 1.5 1.52 2 2Utility 1 Utility 1 Utility 1Utility 2 Utility 2 Utility 2Zipcode WRT, All addresses, 28 hospitals Zipcode WRT, All addresses, 28 hospitals Zipcode WRT, All addresses, 28 hospitalscomparison_no comparison_no comparison_no Water Residence Time Short Intermediate Long Short Intermediate Long OR = 1.05 (1.00-1.09) OR = 1.05 (1.02-1.08)
  • 28. Conclusions: • People living in zip codes receiving water with the longest residence time in the distribution system may be at moderately increased risk for GI illness
  • 29. Follow-up Study to Evaluate Microbial Water Quality in the Distribution System • Water Residence Time • Main Breaks • Pressure Fluctuations
  • 30. Monitoring Locations
  • 31. Automated Monitoring and Sampling (AMS) Device
  • 32. Ultrafiltración para Muestras de GranVolumen Recycle Pump Sample reservoir100 L Ultrafilter Air vent Retentate reservoir Q Permeate (waste) Flow Flow Restrictor Dead-end Flow meter 1L 2,900 mL/min 1 , 2 1,100 mL/min 3-way valve
  • 33. Water Sample! Filtered Water! (aka “filtrate” or “permeate”)! (UF Membrane)! Microbes! Suspended solids! Colloidal matter! Large dissolved molecules! Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration Schematic Division of Foodborne,Waterborne and Environmental Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta with Dr.Vincent Hill!
  • 34. Microbiological Analysis Membrane Filtration ~400 ml Concentrate + Back flush PEG 0.1 mL 1 mL 10 mL E. coli; Total coliforms; C. perfringens; HPC; P. aeruginosa; A. hydrophila 60 to 100 mL Actual volume filtered for each Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; 20th Edition, 1999 American Public Health Association Publications Sample Collection AMS (90L) or Grab sample (2L) Ultrafiltration (AMS, 90L) 100 mL 10^3 10^4 10^5 25 ml actual volume pour plate each Male-specific (MS2) and Somatic Coliphage Dr. Nick Ashbolt lab Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), Legionella +amoebae, Cryptosporidium
  • 35. 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 E . c o l i C F U / 1 0 0 m l Si t e
  • 36. Acknowledgements • Funding: EPA-STAR grant #R834250 (PIs Christine Moe & Paige Tolbert) • Co-Authors: Mitch Klein, Stefanie Sarnat, Sarah Tinker, Samina Panwhar, Alexandra Huttinger, Jim Uber, Paige Tolbert, Christine Moe • Other:Water Utility staff, Hospital staff R834250 The content of this presentation is solely the responsibility of the grantee and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US EPA
  • 37. Co-­‐Authors: • Kara  Nelson • Alan  Hubbard   • Joe  Eisenberg Field  Assistance: • Sarah  Bates • Sangam  Tiwari • Laura  McLaughlin • Karina  Ponce • Patricio  Bueno • William  Cevallos • Geovanny  Hurtado • Maritza  Renteria • Deni  Tenorio • Jairo  Ayovi • Mirta  Campaz • Melecio  Quintero • Owen  Solberg • Khalid  Kadir ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding: • NIAID  Grant  #RO1AI050038   • UCOP  Pacific  Rim  Research   Program
  • 38. gracias.
  • 39. Good San Good WQ Bad WQ Bad San Highest potential for recontamination High potential for recontamination Intermediate potential for recontamination Lowest potential for recontamination improve water storage & sanitation improve water storage integrated approach improve wq + water storage
  • 40. Other Water Sources rainwater harvesting piped surface water private wells