Publication Cover
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A
Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering
Volume 42, 2007 - Issue 12
230
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ARTICLES

Critical pathway analysis to determine key uncertainties in net impacts on disease burden in Bangladesh of arsenic mitigation involving the substitution of arsenic bearing for groundwater drinking water supplies

&
Pages 1909-1917 | Published online: 26 Oct 2007
 

Abstract

It has been increasingly recognised that calculation of the disease burden due to populations, such as in Bangladesh, extensively using hazardous arsenic bearing well waters, must explicitly account for the trade-off between diarrhoeal disease incidence and that of arsenic-related diseases. This is because it is likely that moves to alternative drinking water sources, be they surface waters or even more distant groundwaters, without further mitigation would result in a concurrent increase in diarrhoeal disease. In this paper, we update the model of Lokuge[ Citation 1 ] of the effects of such arsenic mitigation on disease burden in Bangladesh, using updated population data and background disease estimates. We run a critical pathway analysis on the model using Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) for diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease from different epidemiological studies recently reviewed by Navas-Acien.[ Citation 2 , Citation 3 ] Our analysis agrees with that of Lokuge[ Citation 1 ] that mitigation simply involving the substitution of a range of surface waters for well water sources with As > 50 μ g/L would have a net positive impact on disease burden, as determined by deaths and Disability Life Adjusted Years (DALYs). In contrast, however, there is considerable ambiguity in the analogous results for mitigation for all the population exposed to well water with As > 10 μ g/L. Depending upon the data source chosen for diabetes mellitus and ischaemic heart disease SMRs, such mitigation is modelled to have either a positive or a negative net impact on overall disease burden. The modelled negative impacts are entirely commensurate with the rationale for seeking groundwater as an alternative to surface waters as a drinking water supply, and highlight the practical requirement for multiple mitigation strategies, including those directed at ensuring the microbiological safety and continued protection of any alternative water supplies. Our study highlights the need for (i) adequate epidemiological studies involving multiple exposure categories, ideally resulting in an accurate dose-response relationship for arsenic uptake and the non-malignant high incidence conditions diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease for individuals with the socioeconomic and nutritional status of the Bangladeshi populations, and (ii) refined estimates of the diarrhoel disease burden arising from usage of surface waters.

Acknowledgement

GCDA and DAP acknowledge, with thanks, funding from EU-ESF and EPSRC (GR/S30207/01) respectively. We thank Raymond Agius, Debapriya Mondal and Ben Waters (University of Manchester), Sandy Cairncross (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), Dipankar Chakraborti (SOES, Jadavpur University), Abul Hasnat Milton (Newcastle University, Australia) and Martie van Tongeren (Edinburgh University) for various discussions over the last few years that have helped crystallise our thoughts regarding how to assess the relative merits of surface-water and groundwater based remediation strategies in Bengal and elsewhere in the world, where vulnerable populations are similarly afflicted. The views expressed in this paper are, however, our own. Last, we thank the four reviewers of this paper for their incisive and helpful comments.

Notes

1Criteria applicable to all studies;

2Criteria applicable to case-control or cross-sectional studies only/Study is a case-control or cross-sectional study;

3Criteria applicable to cohort studies only/Study is a cohort study.

1Criteria applicable to all studies;

2Criteria applicable to case-control or cross-sectional studies only/Study is a case-control or cross-sectional study;

3Criteria applicable to cohort studies only/Study is a cohort study.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 709.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.