This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Rapid urbanization has led to a growing sanitation crisis in urban areas of Bangladesh and potential exposure to fecal contamination in the urban environment due to inadequate sanitation and poor fecal sludge management. Limited data are available on environmental fecal contamination associated with different exposure pathways in urban Dhaka. We conducted a cross-sectional study to explore the magnitude of fecal contamination in the environment in low-income, high-income, and transient/floating neighborhoods in urban Dhaka. Ten samples were collected from each of 10 environmental compartments in 10 different neighborhoods (4 low-income, 4 high-income and 2 transient/floating neighborhoods). These 1,000 samples were analyzed with the IDEXX-Quanti-Tray technique to determine most-probable-number (MPN) of E. coli. Samples of open drains (6.91 log10 MPN/100 mL), surface water (5.28 log10 MPN/100 mL), floodwater (4.60 log10 MPN/100 mL), produce (3.19 log10 MPN/serving), soil (2.29 log10 MPN/gram), and street food (1.79 log10 MPN/gram) had the highest mean log10 E. coli contamination compared to other samples. The contamination concentrations did not differ between low-income and high-income neighborhoods for shared latrine swabs, open drains, municipal water, produce, and street foodsamples. E. coli contamination levels were significantly higher (p <0.05) in low-income neighborhoods compared to high-income for soil (0.91 log10 MPN/gram, 95% CI, 0.39, 1.43), bathing water (0.98 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 0.41, 1.54), non-municipal water (0.64 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 0.24, 1.04), surface water (1.92 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 1.44, 2.40), and floodwater (0.48 log10 MPN/100 mL, 95% CI, 0.03, 0.92) samples. E. coli contamination were significantly higher (p<0.05) in low-income neighborhoods compared to transient/floating neighborhoods for drain water, bathing water, non-municipal water and surface water. Future studies should examine behavior that brings people into contact with the environment and assess the extent of exposure to fecal contamination in the environment through multiple pathways and associated risks.

Background Hand hygiene is an important measure to prevent disease transmission. Objective To summarise current international guideline recommendations for hand hygiene in community settings and to assess to what extent they are consistent and evidence based. Eligibility criteria We included international guidelines with one or more recommendations on hand hygiene in community settings - categorised as domestic, public or institutional - published by international organisations, in English or French, between 1 January 1990 and 15 November 2021. Data sources To identify relevant guidelines, we searched the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing Database, Google, websites of international organisations, and contacted expert organisations and individuals. Charting methods Recommendations were mapped to four areas related to hand hygiene: (1) effective hand hygiene; (2) minimum requirements; (3) behaviour change and (4) government measures. Recommendations were assessed for consistency, concordance and whether supported by evidence. Results We identified 51 guidelines containing 923 recommendations published between 1999 and 2021 by multilateral agencies and international non-governmental organisations. Handwashing with soap is consistently recommended as the preferred method for hand hygiene across all community settings. Most guidelines specifically recommend handwashing with plain soap and running water for at least 20 s; single-use paper towels for hand drying; and alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) as a complement or alternative to handwashing. There are inconsistent and discordant recommendations for water quality for handwashing, affordable and effective alternatives to soap and ABHR, and the design of handwashing stations. There are gaps in recommendations on soap and water quantity, behaviour change approaches and government measures required for effective hand hygiene. Less than 10% of recommendations are supported by any cited evidence. Conclusion While current international guidelines consistently recommend handwashing with soap across community settings, there remain gaps in recommendations where clear evidence-based guidance might support more effective policy and investment.