4.1 Article

Quantitative microbial risk assessment related to urban wastewater and lagoon water reuse in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire

Journal

JOURNAL OF WATER AND HEALTH
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 301-309

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wh.2013.051

Keywords

diarrhoea; E. coli; G. lamblia; QMRA; risk assessment; wastewater

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
  2. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) through the NCCR (National Center for Competence in Research) North-South
  3. JACS West Africa
  4. RP8
  5. P15
  6. Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques en Cote d'Ivoire (CSRS)
  7. University of Abobo-Adjame in Cote d'Ivoire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed the infection risks related to the use of wastewater in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, by using quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). Giardia lamblia and Escherichia coli were isolated and identified in wastewater samples from the canal and lagoon. The exposure assessment was conducted using a cross-sectional survey by questionnaire with 150 individuals who were in contact with the wastewater during their daily activities of swimming, fishing, washing, and collecting materials for reuse. Risk was characterised using the Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations. Results showed high contamination of water by G. lamblia and E. coli (12.8 CFU/100 mL to 2.97 x 10(4) CFU/100 mL and from 0 cyst/L to 18.5 cysts/L, respectively). Estimates of yearly average infection risks for E. coli (90.07-99.90%, assuming that 8% of E. coli were E. coli O157:H7) and G. lamblia (9.4-34.78%) were much higher than the acceptable risk (10(-4)). These results suggest the need for wastewater treatment plants, raising awareness in the population in contact with urban wastewater and lagoon water. Our study also showed that QMRA is appropriate to study health risks in settings with limited data and budget resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available