We investigate the impacts of access to piped water on drinking water quality, sanitation, hygiene and health outcomes in marginalized rural households of north-western Bangladesh, using a quasi-experimental setup. A government organization – the Barindra Multipurpose Development Authority (BMDA) – established a piped water network to connect rural households with the deep ground water resources and improve their access to potable water. Using propensity score matching, the study compares a treatment and a control group of households to identify gains in water-sanitation, hygiene and health outcomes. In terms of water safety, we find no improvement in the quality of drinking water, measured by E. coli count per 100 ml of water at the point of use (i.e. the pots and jars used to store it). Food utensils tested positive for E. coli in both the control and treatment group, thus showing no improvement through the BMDA intervention. Hygiene behavior such as handwashing with soap after defecation or before feeding children also does not improve. Finally, we do not find evidence of health benefits, such as decreased diarrhea incidence of under-five children or improved nutritional outcomes such as stunting, underweight and wasting. Although access to BMDA piped water in the premises is subject to a fee, it seems this incentive mechanism is not strong enough to improve water behavior or its outcomes: treated households are as poor as the non-treated in terms of maintaining hygiene and water quality, possibly because of lack of information.

COVID-19 is an active pandemic that likely poses an existential threat to humanity. Frequent handwashing, social distancing, and partial or total lockdowns are among the suite of measures prescribed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and being implemented across the world to contain the pandemic. However, existing inequalities in access to certain basic necessities of life (water, sanitation facility, and food storage) create layered vulnerabilities to COVID-19 and can render the preventive measures ineffective or simply counterproductive. We hypothesized that individuals in households without any of the named basic necessities of life are more likely to violate the preventive (especially lockdown) measures and thereby increase the risk of infection or aid the spread of COVID-19. Based on nationally-representative data for 25 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, multivariate statistical and geospatial analyses were used to investigate whether, and to what extent, household family structure is associated with in-house access to basic needs which, in turn, could reflect on a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The results indicate that approximately 46% of the sampled households in these countries (except South Africa) did not have in-house access to any of the three basic needs and about 8% had access to all the three basic needs. Five countries had less than 2% of their households with in-house access to all three basic needs. Ten countries had over 50% of their households with no in-house access to all the three basic needs. There is a social gradient in in-house access between the rich and the poor, urban and rural richest, male- and female-headed households, among others. We conclude that SSA governments would need to infuse innovative gender- and age-sensitive support services (such as water supply, portable sanitation) to augment the preventive measures prescribed by the WHO. Short-, medium- and long-term interventions within and across countries should necessarily address the upstream, midstream and downstream determinants of in-house access and the full spectrum of layers of inequalities including individual, interpersonal, institutional, and population levels.

Hands can be a vector for transmitting pathogenic microorganisms to foodstuffs and drinks, and to the mouths of susceptible hosts. Hand washing is the primary barrier to prevent transmission of enteric pathogens via cross-contamination from infected persons. Conventional hand washing involves the use of water, soap, and friction to remove dirt and microorganisms. The availability of hand sanitizing products for use when water and soap are unavailable has increased in recent years. The aim of this systematic review was to collate scientific information on the efficacy of hand sanitizers compared with washing hands with soap and water for the removal of foodborne pathogens from the hands of food handlers. An extensive literature search was carried out using three electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Twenty-eight scientific publications were ultimately included in the review. Analysis of this literature revealed various limitations in the scientific information owing to the absence of a standardized protocol for evaluating the efficacy of hand products and variation in experimental conditions. However, despite conflicting results, scientific evidence seems to support the historical skepticism about the use of waterless hand sanitizers in food preparation settings. Water and soap appear to be more effective than waterless products for removal of soil and microorganisms from hands. Alcohol-based products achieve rapid and effective inactivation of various bacteria, but their efficacy is generally lower against nonenveloped viruses. The presence of food debris significantly affects the microbial inactivation rate of hand sanitizers.

Sanitation improvements have had limited effectiveness in reducing the spread of fecal pathogens into the environment. We conducted environmental measurements within a randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh that implemented individual and combined water treatment, sanitation, handwashing (WSH) and nutrition interventions (WASH Benefits, NCT01590095). Following approximately 4 months of intervention, we enrolled households in the trial’s control, sanitation and combined WSH arms to assess whether sanitation improvements, alone and coupled with water treatment and handwashing, reduce fecal contamination in the domestic environment. We quantified fecal indicator bacteria in samples of drinking and ambient waters, child hands, food given to young children, courtyard soil and flies. In the WSH arm, Escherichia coli prevalence in stored drinking water was reduced by 62% (prevalence ratio = 0.38 (0.32, 0.44)) and E. coli concentration by 1-log (Δlog₁₀ = −0.88 (−1.01, −0.75)). The interventions did not reduce E. coli along other sampled pathways. Ambient contamination remained high among intervention households. Potential reasons include noncommunity-level sanitation coverage, child open defecation, animal fecal sources, or naturalized E. coli in the environment. Future studies should explore potential threshold effects of different levels of community sanitation coverage on environmental contamination.