Impacts of water physicochemical parameters on schistosomiasis vector snail distributional-abundance and infectivity rate in South-Eastern Nigeria.
Résumé fourni par la source
Schistosomiasis, an NTD, poses public health problems for rural communities. The parameters controlling its intermediate hosts are scarcely studied. 24 human-water contacts were sampled for 12 months to understand the impacts of water parameters on the vector. Sampling was done by monthly handpicking of the snail vector with a net to analyze the water parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, depth, and rainfall). 546 snails recovered from the water sites showed that Bulinus globosus had the highest occurrence (50.5%), followed by Lanistes varicus (27.7%), and Bulinus truncatus species (3.7%). Ohaukwu LGA recorded the highest occurrence of freshwater snails at 55.3%, while Amovu stream had the highest number of snails with an overall abundance of 35.9%. May had the highest cercariae shedding at 26%, followed by June at 20%. No shedding occurred in September, November, December, and January. The infectivity rate of freshwater snails collected showed a significant difference based on the month (X2=6590.079, p- value=0.006). The study reveals that water physicochemical parameters significantly influence the abundance of intermediate snail hosts, with all parameters positively correlated except for temperature, conductivity, and TDS. This poses a significant public health threat due to vector snails' presence.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Impacts of water physicochemical parameters on schistosomiasis vector snail distributional-abundance and infectivity rate in South-Eastern Nigeria.
- Date Crossref
- 28/03/2024
- Éditeur
- African Journals Online (AJOL)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.