Spatial analysis of water body distance and West Nile Virus human cases in Houston, TX

West Nile Virus (WNV) is an arboviral disease that has affected hundreds of residents in Harris County, Texas since its introduction in 2002. Persistent infection, lingering sequelae and other long-term symptoms of patients reaffirm the need for prevention of this important vector-borne disease. This study aimed to determine if living within 400m of a water body increases one’s odds of infection with WNV. Additionally, we wanted to determine if one’s proximity to a particular water type or water body source increased one’s odds of infection with WNV.^ 145 cases’ addresses were abstracted from the initial interview and consent records from a cohort of patients (Epidemiology of Arboviral Encephalitis in Houston study, HSC-SPH-03-039). After applying inclusion criteria, 140 cases were identified for analysis. 140 controls were selected for analysis using a population proportionate to size model and US Census Bureau data. MapMarker USA v14 was used to geocode the cases’ addresses. Both cases’ and controls’ coordinates were uploaded onto a Harris County water shapefile in MapInfo Professional v9.5.1. Distance in meters to the closest water source, closest water source type, and closest water source name were recorded.^ Analysis of Variance (p=0.329, R2 = 0.0034) indicated no association between water body distance and risk of WNV disease. Living near a creek (x2 = 11.79, p < 0.001), or the combined group of creek and gully (x 2 = 14.02, p < 0.001) were found to be strongly associated with infection of WNV. Living near Cypress Creek and its feeders (x2 = 15.2, p < 0.001) was found to be strongly associated with WNV infection. We found that creek and gully habitats, particularly Cypress Creek, were preferential for the local disease transmitting Culex quinquefasciatus and reservoir avian population.^

A comparative review of water disinfection methods appropriate for developing countries and their efficacy, cost-efficiency, and usability

Developing countries are heavily burdened by limited access to safe drinking water and subsequent water-related diseases. Numerous water treatment interventions combat this public health crisis, encompassing both traditional and less-common methods. Of these, water disinfection serves as an important means to provide safe drinking water. Existing literature discusses a wide range of traditional treatment options and encourages the use of multi-barrier approaches including coagulation-flocculation, filtration, and disinfection. Most sources do not delve into approaches specifically appropriate for developing countries, nor do they exclusively examine water disinfection methods.^ The objective of this review is to focus on an extensive range of chemical, physio-chemical, and physical water disinfection techniques to provide a compilation, description and evaluation of options available. Such an objective provides further understanding and knowledge to better inform water treatment interventions and explores alternate means of water disinfection appropriate for developing countries. Appropriateness for developing countries corresponds to the effectiveness of an available, easy to use disinfection technique at providing safe drinking water at a low cost.^ Among chemical disinfectants, SWS sodium hypochlorite solution is preferred over sodium hypochlorite bleach due to consistent concentrations. Tablet forms are highly recommended chemical disinfectants because they are effective and very easy to use, but also because they are stable. Examples include sodium dichloroisocyanurate, calcium hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide, which vary in cost depending on location and availability. Among physio-chemical disinfection options, electrolysis which produces mixed oxidants (MIOX) provides a highly effective disinfection option with a higher upfront cost but very low cost over the long term. Among physical disinfection options, solar disinfection (SODIS) applications are effective, but they treat only a fixed volume of water at a time. They come with higher initial costs but very low on-going costs. Additional effective disinfection techniques may be suitable depending on the location, availability and cost.^