Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 29, Number 12—December 2023
CME ACTIVITY - Research

Risk Factors for Enteric Pathogen Exposure among Children in Black Belt Region of Alabama, USA

On This Page
CME Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
CME Follow Up
Cite This Article
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Downloads
Article
Appendix
RIS [TXT - 2 KB]
Article Metrics
Metric Details
Related Articles
Salmonella sp. Tied to Multistate Outbreak Isolated from Wastewater, United States, 2022
Wastewater Surveillance for Poliovirus, 2022–2023
Wastewater Surveillance for Norovirus, California, USA
More articles on water
Author affiliations: Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA (D. Capone); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA (T. Bakare, T. Barker, R. Clark, L. Copperthwaite, A. Flemister, R. Geason, E. Hoos, E. Kim, A. Manoj, S. Pomper, C. Samodal, J. Brown); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA (A. Hutson Chatham, C. Poole); Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (S. Smith)

Cite This Article

Introduction

CME Logo

Medscape CME ACTIVITY

In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Medscape, LLC and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 1.0 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

All other clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CME activity: (1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test with a 75% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at https://www.medscape.org/journal/eid; and (4) view/print certificate.

NOTE: It is Medscape's policy to avoid the use of Brand names in accredited activities. However, in an effort to be as clear as possible, the use of brand names should not be viewed as a promotion of any brand or as an endorsement by Medscape of specific products.

Release date: November 15, 2023; Expiration date: November 15, 2024
Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  • Assess characteristics of the current study examining the prevalence of enteric pathogens among children and adolescents

  • Distinguish the prevalence of enteric pathogens among children and adolescents in the current study

  • Compare rates of positive tests for different enteric pathogens in the current study

  • Evaluate variables associated with a higher rate of positive testing for at least 1 pathogen in the current study

CME Editor

Jude Rutledge, BA, Technical Writer/Editor, Emerging Infectious Diseases. Disclosure: Jude Rutledge, BA, has no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author

Charles P. Vega, MD, Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California. Disclosure: Charles P. Vega, MD, has the following relevant financial relationships: served as an advisor or consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline; Johnson & Johnson.

Authors

Drew Capone, PhD; Toheedat Bakare; Troy Barker, MPH; Amy Hutson Chatham, PhD; Ryan Clark, BS; Lauren Copperthwaite, BS; Abeoseh Flemister, BS; Riley Geason, BS; Emery Hoos; Elizabeth Kim, BS; Alka Manoj, BS; Sam Pomper, BS; Christina Samodal, BS; Simrill Smith, BS; Claudette Poole, MD; and Joe Brown, PhD.

Top

Abstract

We collected stool from school-age children from 352 households living in the Black Belt region of Alabama, USA, where sanitation infrastructure is lacking. We used quantitative reverse transcription PCR to measure key pathogens in stool that may be associated with water and sanitation, as an indicator of exposure. We detected genes associated with >1 targets in 26% of specimens, most frequently Clostridioides difficile (6.6%), atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (6.1%), and enteroaggregative E. coli (3.9%). We used generalized estimating equations to assess reported risk factors for detecting >1 pathogen in stool. We found no association between lack of sanitation and pathogen detection (adjusted risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.55–1.7]) compared with specimens from children served by sewerage. However, we did observe an increased risk for pathogen detection among children living in homes with well water (adjusted risk ratio 1.7 [95% CI 1.1–2.5]) over those reporting water utility service.

Outside cities and towns served by conventional sewerage, many residents in the rural Black Belt region of Alabama, USA, have failing or inadequate sanitation infrastructure (1,2). This region was named after its rich black soils, which are typically high in clay content, limiting subsurface infiltration (3) and leading to surface discharge of domestic wastewater. Compounding those challenges is a high rate of poverty; 9 of the 10 poorest counties in Alabama are in the Black Belt region (2,4). Because common alternatives to septic systems are unaffordable (5,6), many residents use failing systems or lack systems altogether (7,8). Straight piping (i.e., direct discharge of untreated fecal wastes to the environment) of domestic wastewater is common (7).

When human fecal wastes are not safely managed, they may be transported to the environment through well-understood fecal–oral pathways (i.e., drinking water, soils, flies, food, fomites, and hands) (9,10). For households reliant on straight pipe discharge of wastewater, direct exposure to this waste may be more likely than for households served by a septic system (8). Those same households and their communities may also suffer from exposures further downstream. Inadequate treatment of fecal wastes can result in enteric pathogen transport through soil into groundwater and exposure through drinking water (e.g., well water) (11,12). Other exposures may include fecally contaminated soils (13), flies that feed on and reproduce in human feces (14,15), and contaminated food (10). Such exposures can result in infection with enteric pathogens, which is a necessary precondition for diarrheal disease and other sequelae, including environmental enteric dysfunction (16), growth deficits (17), cognitive impairment (18), and negative effects on the immune system (19).

Poor sanitation and persistent exposure to fecal wastes, particularly in the context of a state and nation with ample resources to address the issue (20), represents a public policy failure (7,21) affecting human health, dignity, and quality of life. Although the evidence base for public investment in sanitation on health grounds has a long history (22), the health burden attributable to poor rural sanitation in the United States remains poorly characterized, constraining the case for action. To determine the potential roles of rural sanitation improvements or other interventions in controlling disease transmission, a useful first step is estimating prevalence of enteric infections and identifying risk factors associated with them. Because of documented poor sanitation conditions in Alabama’s Black Belt region (5,7,8) and the associated potential persistence of endemic enteric infection (23–25), we conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of stool-based enteric pathogen detection in children using molecular methods, as an indicator of previous exposure. We further sought to identify potential household-level environmental risk factors for exposure to those pathogens to understand the potential role of infrastructure in protecting public health in this underserved region.

Methods

Study Site and Participants

This study was nested within a larger cross-sectional helminth surveillance study in rural Alabama (26). Participants were children 2–18 years of age living in 3 counties in the Black Belt (Lowndes, Wilcox, and Perry Counties). All children included in a household were requested to participate. The study used principles of community-based participatory research to work with stakeholders in co-creation of the project (27). Several meetings and focus groups were held with community partners and study collaborators to help guide study protocols, recruitment methods and materials, and participant enrollment. Participants were enrolled during January 2019–December 2021 (26).

We provided participants with an at-home stool collection kit. For 3 separate bowel movements, participants filled and returned 1 50-mL collection tube containing 15 mL of zinc polyvinyl alcohol (Zn-PVA) (28) with ≈15 g of stool and another tube containing 15 mL of 10% formalin with an additional 15 g of stool (Parapak; Meridian Bioscience). Participants received $150 on a prepaid debit card for their participation. In addition, participants completed a brief paper questionnaire regarding their demographic characteristics, household sanitation infrastructure, and potential exposures. Before March 2020, the questionnaire was completed at the time of enrollment; after March 2020, the questionnaire was completed by the participant at home and mailed to the study team.

Molecular Analysis

During January 2019–November 2020, specimens were shipped at ambient conditions to Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, GA, USA); during December 2020–December 2021, specimens were shipped at ambient conditions to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill, NC, USA). Upon receipt, we visually screened specimens for indicators of nonhuman origin (i.e., animal hair, dirt, color, and atypical morphology), homogenized them with sterile inoculating loops (VWR; Radnor) and stored them at 4°C for further analysis. By using the QIAamp 96 Virus QIAcube HT Kit (QIAGEN), which included a pretreatment step with Precellys SK38 bead beating tubes (Bertin Technologies) (29–31), we extracted total nucleic acids from ≈150 mg of the stool Zn-PVA mixture. We typically extracted specimens within 1–4 weeks of receipt (median 15 days, interquartile range 8–28 days). We analyzed extracts from specimens suspected to potentially be from nonhuman sources by using dPCR (QIAcuity 4; QIAGEN) for human mitochondrial DNA, using a previously validated method that has high sensitivity and specificity for human feces (32). Among children who submitted >1 stool specimen, we randomly selected a single replicate for extraction. We randomly selected ≈5% of stools for duplicate extraction and another 3% for extraction from multiple replicates. We included >1 extraction-negative control (33) during each day of extractions. We spiked specimens with 107 copies of bacteriophage MS2 and 106 gene copies of synthetic DNA (IDT) as extraction-positive controls. We stored extracts at –80°C until analysis.

We measured 30 enteric pathogens in specimens by using a custom TaqMan Array Card (TAC) on a Quantstudio 7 Flex (ThermoFisher) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, according to the methods described by Liu et al. (34). Targets were Acanthamoeba spp., adenovirus 40/41, astrovirus, Balantidium coli, Blastocystis spp., Cystoisospora belli, Cyclospora cayetanensi, Campylobacter jejuni or C. coli, Clostridioides difficile, Cryptosporidium spp., Enterocytozoon bieneusi, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Encephalitozoon intestinalis, Entamoeba hystolytica, Entamoeba spp., enteroaggregative E. coli, enteropathogenic E. coli, enterotoxigenic E. coli, Giardia spp., Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis A virus, Shigella spp. or enteroinvasive E. coli, norovirus, Plesiomonas shigelloides, rotavirus, Salmonella spp., sapovirus, SARS-CoV-2, Shiga toxin–producing E. coli, and Yersinia enterocolitica. We prepared the TAC by combining 40 µL of template with 60 µL of AgPath-ID One-Step RT-PCR Reagents (Applied Biosystems). We evaluated TAC performance by using an 8-fold dilution series (109–102 gene copies/reaction) of an engineered combined positive control developed by using methods from Kodani and Winchell 2012 (35). We used 2 plasmids (GeneArt), including 1 specifically for DNA targets. We linearized the other with a BshT1 restriction enzyme (ThermoFisher) and transcribed it (MEGAscript T7 Transcription Kit and MEGAclear Transcription Clean-Up Kit, both from ThermoFisher) to generate RNA control material, which we quantified by using a Qubit RNA HS Assay Kit on Qubit 4 Fluorometer (ThermoFisher). The linearity and efficiency for 28 of the 30 targets were within normative standards (linearity 0.97–1.0, efficiency 87%–102%) (Appendix Tables 1–3, Figure 1). The assays for hepatitis A virus and adenovirus 40/41 did not perform well, and we excluded them from our analysis.

Each day of TAC analysis, we included >1 positive and negative control (either an extraction-negative control or a PCR-negative control). We determined quantification cycle values through manual thresholding and included comparison of each specimen’s fluorescent signal against the daily negative and positive controls (Appendix Figure 1). We categorized any target that amplified past a quantification cycle of 35 as negative to reduce the potential for false positives (34). To examine the effect of our preservation medium on the probability of detecting our targets of interest, we measured recovery of Giardia duodenalis and Shigella sonnei from stool by using different preservative conditions over a period of 8 weeks (Appendix).

Data Analysis

To perform Poisson regression, we used generalized estimating equations with robust SEs that accounted for clustering among children living in the same household. This method estimated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios with 95% CIs. We created a directed acyclic graph on the basis of the variables included in the questionnaire where independent variables were biologically plausible predictors of the dependent variable, which was the detection of nucleic acids from >1 enteric pathogen in stool (Appendix Figure 2). Independent variables that met this criterion were the household’s sanitation infrastructure, whether the household paid a water bill (i.e., a proxy measure indicating a connection to a water utility), reported raw sewage in the home, and the child’s screen time, sex, history of international travel, and age. We generated adjusted estimates from a single model that included all independent variables. We used multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE package in R [36]) with 10 multiple imputations and the predictive mean matching method to account for missing data in the generalized estimating equations model.

Ethics Considerations

We obtained written informed consent from each participant’s legal guardian and assent from children >7 years of age. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (approval no. 300002219), Georgia Institute of Technology (approval no. H19021), and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (approval no. 20-3212).

Results

Questionnaire

We enrolled 488 children from Wilcox (237 participants from 181 households), Lowndes (101 participants from 50 households), and Perry Counties (86 participants from 55 households) (Table 1). Most children identified as Black or African American (91% [444/488]); few identified as White (2% [9/488]), preferred not to answer (1% [6/488]), identified as Black and White (<1% [2/488]), or were unsure (<1% [2/488]). Almost half of households (47% [164/352 households) enrolled multiple children (63% [306/488] participants). The median age of enrolled children was 11 years (range 2–18 years, interquartile range 8–14 years). A septic tank system was the most reported sanitation infrastructure (42% [207/488] of participants, 39% 137/352 of households), followed by a sewer connection (23% [111/488] of participants, 20% [72/352] of households,), whereas 11% (56/488) of respondents (11% [39/352] of households) reported straight piping wastewater onto their property. Few participants reported not paying a water bill (14% [67/488] of participants, 14% [48/352] of households), an indicator of household-based well water usage. As a proxy for time spent indoors, participants most often reported >4 hours of screen time per day (42% [203/488]), followed by 2–4 hours (37% [182/488]) and <2 hours (15% [72/488]).

Reverse Transcription Quantitative PCR

We detected target-specific nucleic acids from >1 pathogen in 26% (127/488) of children’s stool specimens (Table 2), most frequently C. difficile (6.6% [32/488]), atypical enteropathogenic E. coli (6.1% [30/488]), and enteroaggregative E. coli (3.9% [19/488]). We detected each viral, protozoan, fungal, and algae targets in <1.0% of specimens except for Blastocystis (3.7% [18/488]) and norovirus genotype group I or II (1.4% [7/488]). We observed perfect agreement in target detection among 26 specimens analyzed in duplicate (same child, same bowel movement) and 80% (12/15) agreement in pathogen detection among replicates (same child, different bowel movement). We did not observe contamination among extraction-negative controls (n = 19) and PCR-negative controls (n = 2), and our PCR-positive controls (n = 30) exhibited the expected amplification for all targets except hepatitis A virus and adenovirus 40/41.

Risk Factor Analysis

We found no association between pathogen detection in samples from participants who reported using a straight pipe or septic tank compared with those served by a sewer connection (Table 3). The only statistically significant association we observed, according to the conventional definition of significance (37), was that participants from households that did not pay a water bill (a proxy for well water consumption) had a greater risk (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.7 [95% CI 1.1–2.5]) of detection of >1 pathogen than did participants from households that reported paying a water bill. Although not meeting conventional definitions of statistical significance (37), the point estimates for 2–4 hours of screen time (aRR 0.79 [95% CI 0.51–1.2]) and >4 hours of screen time (aRR 0.73 [95% CI 0.47–1.1]) suggest that time spent indoors could be protective against enteric pathogen detection, although this observation should be interpreted with caution. We found minor differences in the regression results using only complete cases (n = 341) compared with the model that used MICE (Appendix Table 4); not paying a water bill was associated with increased risk for detecting >1 pathogen targets (aRR 1.8 [95% CI 1.3–2.6]), and >4 hours of reported daily screen time had a greater protective effect at the margin of significance (aRR 0.64 [95% CI 0.41–1.0]).

Human Stool Specimen Confirmation

One stool specimen was flagged by technicians as potentially nonhuman because of atypical morphology. In addition, we prospectively selected 51 additional specimens for screening to determine origin. All specimens were positive for human mitochondrial DNA at concentrations indicating human origin (32). The median concentration was 103.3 gene copies human mitochondrial DNA per nanogram of double-stranded DNA (range 101.2–104.7 gene copies/nanogram double-stranded DNA).

Zn-PVA Validation

The concentration of Giardia DNA we recovered from Zn-PVA decreased by 0.034 log10/day at ambient conditions and by 0.0037 log10/day in Zn-PVA at 4°C. The concentration of Shigella DNA we recovered from Zn-PVA decreased at ambient conditions by 0.030 log10/day and by 0.0085 log10/day in Zn-PVA at 4°C (Appendix Table 5, Figure 3).

Discussion

We detected various enteric pathogens in stool specimens from children living in the Black Belt of Alabama. Straight pipe sanitation (direct discharge of fecal wastes into the environment near households) was not associated with increased risk for stool pathogen detection compared with conventional sewerage. However, our finding that well water consumption was associated with an increased risk for enteric pathogen detection implicates poor sanitation in this geographic area as a possible contributor to groundwater contamination. Soils that are high in clay content undergo shrinking as they desiccate and swelling as they moisten (3). Those conditions may lead to fecal waste transport from failing septic tanks and straight pipe discharges through soils to the water table (3,38), resulting in exposures through drinking water. Previous work in the Black Belt observed an increased concentration of fecal contamination in well water compared with piped municipal water. In a cross-sectional study of randomly selected households in Hale County (bordering Perry County in the Black Belt), 20% of private wells were positive for fecal coliforms, compared with 8% of public water system specimens (12). Other studies from the region have reported fecal contamination of water supplies, possibly linked to widespread sanitation deficits (11,39,40).

We used detection of pathogens in stool as a proxy for carriage and as an unambiguous indicator of previous exposure (41), a suitable measure given the role of water and sanitation infrastructure in limiting exposures to many of the pathogens we assessed. It is important to note that detecting a pathogen in stool does not necessarily indicate the person experienced symptomatic or asymptomatic infection. For example, detecting C. difficile by PCR does not guarantee the presence of C. difficile toxin, and infection without the presence of this toxin may not result in diarrheal disease (42). Further, the relationship between carriage, infection, and disease is highly host- and pathogen-specific (43). Evidence from an international multisite study on the etiology of diarrhea in children posited that the detection of enteroaggregative E. coli at low concentrations in stool appeared to be protective against diarrhea, whereas detection of pathogens such as Helicobacter pylori, Shigella, and norovirus were strongly associated with diarrhea (43). Important microbiome-mediated interactions between and among pathogens are possible, and host responses can vary.

Compared with data for children in low- and middle-income countries, the 26% combined prevalence of enteric pathogens we observed is dramatically lower than what has been previously reported (29,43). Few studies have screened populations for multiple enteric pathogens in high-income countries outside of clinical settings or from asymptomatic populations. A study of 438 children in daycare centers in Uppsala, Sweden, from 2016 tested for 21 different enteric pathogens using PCR and detected >1 pathogen in stool specimens from 3.7% of children (44). The pathogens they detected most frequently were C. difficile (2.5%), adenovirus 40/41 (1.6%), Campylobacter (0.7%), and norovirus (0.7%) (Appendix Table 6). A 2001 study of 1,091 asymptomatic children and adults in Australia assessed 28 pathogens and detected >1 pathogen in 2.6% of stool specimens, including Giardia (1.6%), Salmonella (0.4%), Cryptosporidium (0.4%), and adenovirus (0.1%) (45). Prevalence of >1 pathogen was higher for children <10 years of age (4.6%) compared with children 10–20 years of age (0.6%) and adults >20 years of age (1.2%). Blastocystis hominis, which the authors did not consider pathogenic and was not included in the reported 2.6% prevalence, was detected in 6.0% of stool specimens.

Our results indicate substantially higher prevalence of gut pathogens compared with those studies. However, we detected some individual pathogens less frequently than in other similar studies in the United States. Among infants in Denver, Colorado, USA, in 1990, an estimated 16% of those attending daycare and 9% of those not enrolled had Giardia duodenalis detected in stool specimens (46). In 1991, the prevalence of Cryptosporidium was 3% and G. duodenalis 7% among children attending daycare centers in Fulton County, Georgia, USA (47). Those values are higher than the 0.4% (2/488) prevalence we observed for Giardia and the 0% prevalence for Cryptosporidium, although the Colorado and Georgia studies took place more than 30 years ago in different settings and populations. More recently, Tisdale et al. (48) used the TAC platform to screen adults traveling internationally from the United States and Germany to low- and middle-income countries for 22 pathogens. Similar to our results, they detected >1 pathogen in stool specimens from 21% of asymptomatic controls.

One limitation of this study is that logistical constraints did not enable analysis of fresh specimens. Transport and storage conditions (time, temperature, and transport media) can influence recovery of pathogen-associated nucleic acids, potentially lowering the sensitivity of molecular assays we used and possibly leading to false-negative results if DNA or RNA fell below our detection limits. Although we attempted to reduce time-to-analysis and to optimize storage conditions to preserve the stability of DNA and RNA, some loss of signal is unavoidable. We assessed Zn-PVA’s performance in preserving nucleic acids in spiked controls (Appendix). In addition, we had missing data in our surveys because of logistical difficulties imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the need for participants to complete surveys at home and mail them separately from specimens. In addition, some missing data may have been the result of hesitancy to share sanitary conditions because straight pipe discharge of domestic wastewater (8) is illegal in the study area (7). To mitigate the effect of this missing data, we used MICE and obtained similar results by using this imputation approach compared with analysis on the complete dataset. Further, we were unable to conduct household visits to confirm water and sanitation infrastructure characteristics, including those that may be additional important risk factors for exposure to key pathogens, including wastewater discharges, water source characteristics, soil types, and other environmental variables.

In conclusion, our results suggest that children in households in this region that are reliant on domestic wells may experience increased risks for enteric pathogen exposure compared with children in households with water supplied by utilities. Elevated levels of fecal contamination in groundwater (12) could be related to documented deficiencies in rural sanitation in the region, and water as a proximal exposure pathway merits further exploration. New models for infrastructure delivery and management may help expand services, given the limitations of the current paradigm of each household being fully responsible for waste management despite the potential for collective impacts on public health.

Top

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the persons and communities who participated in the study.

This research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Columbia World Projects. D.C. was supported in part by an NIH T32 Fellowship (5T32ES007018-44).

Top

References

  1. He  J, Dougherty  M, Zellmer  R, Martin  G. Assessing the status of onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Alabama Black Belt soil area. Environ Eng Sci. 2011;28:693–9. DOIGoogle Scholar
  2. US Census Bureau. Quick facts: Lowndes County Alabama, United States [cited 2022 Jan 31]. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/01085,00
  3. Canter  L, Knox  R. Septic tank system effects on ground water quality. 1st edition. Chelsea (MI): Lewis Publishers, Inc.; 1985.
  4. US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2013–2017, 5-year estimates. 2019 [cited 2023 Jan 1]. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2017.S1901?q=income+in+alabama+in+2017+by+county
  5. Izenberg  M, Johns-Yost  O, Johnson  PD, Brown  J. Nocturnal convenience: the problem of securing universal sanitation access in Alabama’s Black Belt. Environ Justice. 2013;6:200–5. DOIGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones  AP, Moulton  A. The invisible crisis: water unaffordability in the United States. 2016 [cited 2023 Jan 1]. https://affordablewater.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/UUSC_water_report_july_2016_update.pdf
  7. Winkler  IT, Flowers  CC. America’s dirty secret: the human right to sanitation in Alabama’s Black Belt. Columbia Human Rights Law Rev. 2017;49:181 https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2018/01/IngaTWinklerCatherineCole.pdf cited 2023 Jan 1.
  8. Maxcy-Brown  J, Elliott  MA, Krometis  LA, Brown  J, White  KD, Lall  U. Making waves: Right in our backyard- surface discharge of untreated wastewater from homes in the United States. Water Res. 2021;190:116647. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Penakalapati  G, Swarthout  J, Delahoy  MJ, McAliley  L, Wodnik  B, Levy  K, et al. Exposure to animal feces and human health: a systematic review and proposed research priorities. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:11537–52. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wagner  EG, Lanoix  JN. Excreta disposal for rural areas and small communities. Monogr Ser World Health Organ. 1958;39:1–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Stauber  CE, Wedgworth  JC, Johnson  P, Olson  JB, Ayers  T, Elliott  M, et al. Associations between self-reported gastrointestinal illness and water system characteristics in community water supplies in rural Alabama: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148102. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook Wedgworth  J, Brown  J. Limited access to safe drinking water and sanitation in Alabama’s Black Belt: a cross-sectional case study. Water Qual Expo Health. 2013;5:69–74. DOIGoogle Scholar
  13. Capone  D, Bivins  A, Knee  J, Cumming  O, Nalá  R, Brown  J. Quantitative microbial risk assessment of pediatric infections attributable to ingestion of fecally contaminated domestic soils in low-income urban Maputo, Mozambique. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:1941–52. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenberg  B. Flies and disease volume II: biology and disease transmission. 1st edition. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1973.
  15. West  LS. The housefly. Its natural history, medical importance, and control. 1st edition. Binghamton (NY): Comstock Publishing Company; 1951.
  16. Humphrey  JH. Child undernutrition, tropical enteropathy, toilets, and handwashing. Lancet. 2009;374:1032–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogawski  ET, Liu  J, Platts-Mills  JA, Kabir  F, Lertsethtakarn  P, Siguas  M, et al.; MAL-ED Network Investigators. Use of quantitative molecular diagnostic methods to investigate the effect of enteropathogen infections on linear growth in children in low-resource settings: longitudinal analysis of results from the MAL-ED cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e1319–28. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Stewart  CP, Kariger  P, Fernald  L, Pickering  AJ, Arnold  CD, Arnold  BF, et al. Effects of water quality, sanitation, handwashing, and nutritional interventions on child development in rural Kenya (WASH Benefits Kenya): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2:269–80. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Oriá  RB, Murray-Kolb  LE, Scharf  RJ, Pendergast  LL, Lang  DR, Kolling  GL, et al. Early-life enteric infections: relation between chronic systemic inflammation and poor cognition in children. Nutr Rev. 2016;74:374–86. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Capone  D, Cumming  O, Nichols  D, Brown  J. Water and sanitation in urban America, 2017–2019. Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1567–72. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 64/292. The human right to water and sanitation. 2010 Aug 3 [cited 2023 Jan 1]. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/479/35/PDF/N0947935.pdf
  22. Cutler  D, Miller  G. The role of public health improvements in health advances: the twentieth-century United States. Demography. 2005;42:1–22. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McKenna  ML, McAtee  S, Bryan  PE, Jeun  R, Ward  T, Kraus  J, et al. Human intestinal parasite burden and poor sanitation in rural Alabama. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97:1623–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Singer  R, Xu  TH, Herrera  LNS, Villar  MJ, Faust  KM, Hotez  PJ, et al. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in a low-income Texas community. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;102:1386–95. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Russell  ES, Gray  EB, Marshall  RE, Davis  S, Beaudoin  A, Handali  S, et al. Prevalence of Strongyloides stercoralis antibodies among a rural Appalachian population—Kentucky, 2013. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:1000–1. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Poole  C, Barker  T, Bradbury  R, Capone  D, Hutson Chatham  A, Handali  S, et al. Cross-sectional study of soil-transmitted helminthiases in Black Belt Region of Alabama, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:XXX.
  27. Bowling  T, Hall  N. Improving rural public health through ‘best practice’ water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives. Health (London). 2019;23:197–214. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Abanyie  F, Harvey  RR, Harris  JR, Wiegand  RE, Gaul  L, Desvignes-Kendrick  M, et al.; Multistate Cyclosporiasis Outbreak Investigation Team. 2013 multistate outbreaks of Cyclospora cayetanensis infections associated with fresh produce: focus on the Texas investigations. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:3451–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Knee  J, Sumner  T, Adriano  Z, Berendes  D, de Bruijn  E, Schmidt  WP, et al. Risk factors for childhood enteric infection in urban Maputo, Mozambique: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006956. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Capone  D, Ferguson  A, Gribble  MO, Brown  J. Open defecation sites, unmet sanitation needs, and potential sanitary risks in Atlanta, Georgia, 2017–2018. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:1238–40. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Capone  D, Berendes  D, Cumming  O, Knee  J, Nalá  R, Risk  BB, et al. Analysis of fecal sludges reveals common enteric pathogens in urban Maputo, Mozambique. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2020;7:889–95. DOIGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhu  K, Suttner  B, Pickering  A, Konstantinidis  KT, Brown  J. A novel droplet digital PCR human mtDNA assay for fecal source tracking. Water Res. 2020;183:116085. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Borchardt  MA, Boehm  AB, Salit  M, Spencer  SK, Wigginton  KR, Noble  RT. The Environmental Microbiology Minimum Information (EMMI) guidelines: qPCR and dPCR quality and reporting for environmental microbiology. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:10210–23. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu  J, Gratz  J, Amour  C, Nshama  R, Walongo  T, Maro  A, et al. Optimization of quantitative PCR methods for enteropathogen detection. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0158199. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kodani  M, Winchell  JM. Engineered combined-positive-control template for real-time reverse transcription-PCR in multiple-pathogen-detection assays. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:1057–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Buuren  S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn  K. mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–67. DOIGoogle Scholar
  37. Amrhein  V, Greenland  S, McShane  B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019;567:305–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Graham  JP, Polizzotto  ML. Pit latrines and their impacts on groundwater quality: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:521–30. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wedgworth  JC, Brown  J, Johnson  P, Olson  JB, Elliott  M, Forehand  R, et al. Associations between perceptions of drinking water service delivery and measured drinking water quality in rural Alabama. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:7376–92. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wedgworth  JC, Brown  J, Olson  JB, Johnson  P, Elliott  M, Grammer  P, et al. Temporal heterogeneity of water quality in rural Alabama water supplies. J Am Water Works Assoc. 2015;107:E401–15. DOIGoogle Scholar
  41. Brown  J, Cumming  O. Stool-based pathogen detection offers advantages as an outcome measure for water, sanitation, and hygiene trials. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;0:1–2. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Polage  CR, Gyorke  CE, Kennedy  MA, Leslie  JL, Chin  DL, Wang  S, et al. Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in the molecular test era. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1792–801. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu  J, Platts-Mills  JA, Juma  J, Kabir  F, Nkeze  J, Okoi  C, et al. Use of quantitative molecular diagnostic methods to identify causes of diarrhoea in children: a reanalysis of the GEMS case-control study. Lancet. 2016;388:1291–301. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaarme  J, Hickman  RA, Nevéus  T, Blomberg  J, Öhrmalm  C. Reassuringly low carriage of enteropathogens among healthy Swedish children in day care centres. Public Health. 2016;140:221–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hellard  ME, Sinclair  MI, Hogg  GG, Fairley  CK. Prevalence of enteric pathogens among community based asymptomatic individuals. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15:290–3. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Novotny  TE, Hopkins  RS, Shillam  P, Janoff  EN. Prevalence of Giardia lamblia and risk factors for infection among children attending day-care facilities in Denver. Public Health Rep. 1990;105:72–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Addiss  DG, Stewart  JM, Finton  RJ, Wahlquist  SP, Williams  RM, Dickerson  JW, et al. Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium infections in child day-care centers in Fulton County, Georgia. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1991;10:907–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tisdale  MD, Tribble  DR, Mitra  I, Telu  K, Kuo  HC, Fraser  JA, et al. TaqMan Array Card testing of participant-collected stool smears to determine the pathogen-specific epidemiology of travellers’ diarrhoea. J Travel Med. 2022;29:taab138. DOIGoogle Scholar

Top

Figure
Tables

Top

Follow Up

Earning CME Credit

To obtain credit, you should first read the journal article. After reading the article, you should be able to answer the following, related, multiple-choice questions. To complete the questions (with a minimum 75% passing score) and earn continuing medical education (CME) credit, please go to https://www.medscape.org/journal/eid. Credit cannot be obtained for tests completed on paper, although you may use the worksheet below to keep a record of your answers.

You must be a registered user on http://www.medscape.org. If you are not registered on http://www.medscape.org, please click on the “Register” link on the right hand side of the website.

Only one answer is correct for each question. Once you successfully answer all post-test questions, you will be able to view and/or print your certificate. For questions regarding this activity, contact the accredited provider, CME@medscape.net. For technical assistance, contact CME@medscape.net. American Medical Association’s Physician’s Recognition Award (AMA PRA) credits are accepted in the US as evidence of participation in CME activities. For further information on this award, please go to https://www.ama-assn.org. The AMA has determined that physicians not licensed in the US who participate in this CME activity are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Through agreements that the AMA has made with agencies in some countries, AMA PRA credit may be acceptable as evidence of participation in CME activities. If you are not licensed in the US, please complete the questions online, print the AMA PRA CME credit certificate, and present it to your national medical association for review.

Article Title: 
Risk Factors for Enteric Pathogen Exposure among Children in Black Belt Region of Alabama, USA
CME Questions

  • Which one of the following statements regarding demographic and sanitation data from the current study by Capone and colleagues is most accurate?

    • More than 90% of children in the study identified as Black

    • The study sample was taken from rural and urban communities from 6 states across the US South

    • Most families reported straight piping wastewater directly onto their property

    • Most participants reported less than 2 hours of screen time per day

  • What percentage of the study cohort had a positive test for a stool pathogen in the current research?

    • 6%

    • 26%

    • 48%

    • 70%

  • Which one of the following enteric pathogens was most commonly encountered in the current study sample?

    • Clostridioides difficile

    • Helicobacter pylori

    • Salmonella spp.

    • Blastocystis spp.

  • Which one of the following variables was the most significant risk factor for a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for an enteric pathogen in the current study?

    • Straight pipe of wastewater into yard

    • Presence of a septic tank

    • Higher durations of screen time

    • Not paying a water bill

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2912.230780

Original Publication Date: November 15, 2023

Related Links

Table of Contents – Volume 29, Number 12—December 2023

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.

Top

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Joe Brown, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Dr, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: October 10, 2023
Page updated: November 15, 2023
Page reviewed: November 15, 2023
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external