Arsenic in drinking-water sources in Bangladesh, 2012-13 to 2025: national trends, geographic persistence and implications for well testing
Hoque, S. M. A. U.; Islam, M. K.; Hasan, M. K.; Naher, T.; Sharif, M. M.; Hossain, Z. Z.; Banu, B.; Baset, K. u.
Show abstract
Background: Chronic arsenic exposure in drinking water causes skin lesions and cancers and raises infant, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in Bangladesh. National surveys tested source water in 2012-13, 2019 and 2025 with different kits, so the trend is uncertain. Objectives: We estimated how arsenic in source water changed after laboratory adjustment of 2012-13 readings, and how many people remained exposed. We also assessed whether districts high in earlier surveys held most people exposed in 2025. Methods: We analysed 11,624 households in three Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. We counted arsenic strictly above 10 and 50 parts per billion (ppb). Results: Estimates reproduced published 2019 and 2025 tables. After laboratory adjustment of 2012-13, the share above 10 ppb fell from 24.0% to 14.4% (adjusted ratio 0.61, sampling 95% CI 0.55 to 0.67; 0.69 with interview month). Above 50 ppb it fell from 10.9% to 8.6% (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93; 0.93 with month). Most of the fall at 10 ppb occurred within source types. Without false positives, it would vanish only if later kits detected 61% of sources above 10 ppb. About 26 million people used such water in 2025 (kit scenarios 23 to 32 million). The 25 districts high in 2012-13 and 2019 held 39% of the population but 72% of those exposed (bootstrap 95% interval 60 to 76). Clustering was evident, but no district was a significant hotspot. Conclusions: Arsenic above 10 ppb was lower in 2025 than in 2012-13, but the size of the fall depends on unverified later kits. Change at 50 ppb and since 2019 was unclear after month adjustment. One household in seven exceeded the WHO guideline in 2025. Districts found high earlier held most exposed people, supporting prioritised well testing there alongside broader surveillance. Future surveys need one kit with a laboratory cross-check.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- How early into the outbreak can surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater tell us? 92%
- Geospatial approach to investigate spatial clustering and hotspots of blood lead levels in children within Kabwe, Zambia 91%
- The Spectre of SARS-CoV-2 in the Ambient Urban Natural Water in Ahmedabad and Guwahati: A Tale of Two Cities 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Monitoring drinking water quality in nationally representative household surveys: cross-sectional analysis of 20 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys 2014-2019 95%
- Association between combined sewer overflow events and gastrointestinal illness in Massachusetts municipalities with and without river-sourced drinking water, 2014-2019 91%
- Exposure contrasts of pregnant women during the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network randomized controlled trial 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Water Treatment and E. Coli in Drinking Water: Household Responses to (Invisible) Water Quality Risks 95%
- Compounded environmental health risks in mountain communities upstream of Bhumibol Dam, Thailand 94%
- Quantitative assessment of fecal contamination in multiple environmental sample types in urban communities in Dhaka, Bangladesh using SaniPath microbial approach 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Study Design and Rationale for the PAASIM Project, a Matched Cohort Study on Urban Water Supply Improvements and Infant Enteric Pathogen Infection, Gut Microbiome Development, and Health in Mozambique 90%
- Effects of household concrete floors on maternal and child health – the CRADLE trial: a randomised controlled trial protocol 89%
- Impact of a sanitation intervention on quality of life and mental wellbeing in low-income urban neighbourhoods of Maputo, Mozambique 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.