The location of majority and minority populations with respect to commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in Texas

There is a growing interest in the location of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSDF) sites in relation to minority communities. A number of studies have been completed, and the results of these studies have been varied. Some of the studies have shown a strong positive correlation between the location of TSDF sites and minority populations, while a few have shown no significance in that relationship. The major difference between these studies has been in the areal unit used.^ This study compared the minority populations of Texas census tracts and ZIP codes containing a TSDF using the associated county as the comparison population. The hypothesis of this study was that there was no difference between using census tracts and ZIP codes to analyze the relationship of minority populations and TSDF's. The census data used was from 1990, and the initial list of TSDF sites was supplied by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The TSDF site locations were checked using graphical information systems (GIS) programs, in order to increase the accuracy of the identity of exposed ZIP codes and census tracts. The minority populations of the exposed areal units were compared using proportional differences, crosstables, maps, and logistic regression. The dependent variable used was the exposure status of the areal units under study, including counties, census tracts, and ZIP codes. The independent variables used included minority group proportion and grouping of the proportions, educational status, household income, and home value.^ In all cases, education was significant or near significant at the.05 level. Education rather than minority proportion was therefore the most significant predictor of the exposure status of a census tract or ZIP code. ^

The evidence for groundwater as a source of enteric illness in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature

Groundwater constitutes approximately 30% of freshwater globally and serves as a source of drinking water in many regions. Groundwater sources are subject to contamination with human pathogens (viruses, bacteria and protozoa) from a variety of sources that can cause diarrhea and contribute to the devastating global burden of this disease. To attempt to describe the extent of this public health concern in developing countries, a systematic review of the evidence for groundwater microbially-contaminated at its source as risk factor for enteric illness under endemic (non-outbreak) conditions in these countries was conducted. Epidemiologic studies published in English language journals between January 2000 and January 2011, and meeting certain other criteria, were selected, resulting in eleven studies reviewed. Data were extracted on microbes detected (and their concentrations if reported) and on associations measured between microbial quality of, or consumption of, groundwater and enteric illness; other relevant findings are also reported. In groundwater samples, several studies found bacterial indicators of fecal contamination (total coliforms, fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, enterococci and E. coli), all in a wide range of concentrations. Rotavirus and a number of enteropathogenic bacteria and parasites were found in stool samples from study subjects who had consumed groundwater, but no concentrations were reported. Consumption of groundwater was associated with increased risk of diarrhea, with odds ratios ranging from 1.9 to 6.1. However, limitations of the selected studies, especially potential confounding factors, limited the conclusions that could be drawn from them. These results support the contention that microbial contamination of groundwater reservoirs—including with human enteropathogens and from a variety of sources—is a reality in developing countries. While microbially-contaminated groundwaters pose risk for diarrhea, other factors are also important, including water treatment, water storage practices, consumption of other water sources, water quantity and access to it, sanitation and hygiene, housing conditions, and socio-economic status. Further understanding of the interrelationships between, and the relative contributions to disease risk of, the various sources of microbial contamination of groundwater can guide the allocation of resources to interventions with the greatest public health benefit. Several recommendations for future research, and for practitioners and policymakers, are presented.^