The status of water and sanitation among Pacific Rim nations

Analysis of relationships among national wealth, access to improved water supply and sanitation facilities, and population health indices suggests that the adequacy of water resources at the national level is a poor predictor of economic development - namely, that low water stress is neither necessary nor sufficient for economic development at the present state of water stress among Pacific Rim nations. Although nations differ dramatically in terms of priority provided to improved water and sanitation, there is some level of wealth (per capita GNP) at which all nations promote the development of essential environmental services. Among the Pacific Rim countries for which there are data, no nation with a per capita GNP < US$18,000 per year has failed to provide near universal access to improved water supply and sanitation. Below US$18,000/person-year, however, there are decided differences in the provision of sanitary services (improved water supply and sanitation) among nations with similar economic success. There is a fairly strong relationship between child mortality/life expectancy and access to improved sanitation, as expected from the experiences of developed nations. Here no attempt is made to produce causal relationships among these data. Failure to meet Millennium Development Goals for the extension of improved sanitation is frequently evident in nations with large rural populations. Under those circumstances, capital intensive water and sanitation facilities are infeasible, and process selection for water/wastewater treatment requires an adaptation to local conditions, the use of appropriate materials, etc., constraints that are mostly absent in the developed world. Exceptions to these general ideas exist in water-stressed parts of developed countries, where water supplies are frequently augmented by water harvesting, water reclamation/reuse, and the desalination of brackish water resources. Each of these processes involves public acceptance of water resources that are at least initially of inferior quality. Despite predictions of looming increases in water stress throughout the world, adaptation and resourcefulness generally allow us to meet water demand while pursuing rational economic development, even in the most water-stressed areas of the Pacific Rim

Corrigendum to "Biodegradation of polyester polyurethane during commercial composting and analysis of associated fungal communities" [Bioresour. Technol. 158 (2014) 374-377].

The authors regret to inform that the name of the second author was misspelt in the article. Please read the name as Petrus Nzerem instead of Petrus Nzeram. The corrected author name is shown above. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Exposure to noise and ototoxic chemicals in the Australian workforce

Objective: To determine the current prevalence of exposure to workplace noise and ototoxic chemicals, including co-exposures. Method: A cross-sectional telephone survey of nearly 5000 Australian workers was conducted using the web-based application, OccIDEAS. Participants were asked about workplace tasks they performed and predefined algorithms automatically assessed worker's likelihood of exposure to 10 known ototoxic chemicals as well as estimated their full shift noise exposure level (LAeq,8h) of their most recent working day. Results were extrapolated to represent the Australian working population using a raked weighting technique. Results: In the Australian workforce, 19.5% of men and 2.8% of women exceeded the recommended full shift noise limit of 85 dBA during their last working day. Men were more likely to be exposed to noise if they were younger, had trade qualifications and did not live in a major city. Men were more likely exposed to workplace ototoxic chemicals (57.3%) than women (25.3%). Over 80% of workers who exceeded the full shift noise limit were also exposed to at least one ototoxic chemical in their workplace. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that exposures to hazardous noise and ototoxic chemicals are widespread in Australian workplaces and co-exposure is common. Occupational exposure occurs predominantly for men and could explain some of the discrepancies in hearing loss prevalence between genders

Smoking and health-related quality of life in English general population: Implications for economic evaluations

Copyright @ 2012 Vogl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Little is known as to how health-related quality of life (HRQoL) when measured by generic instruments such as EQ-5D differ across smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers in the general population; whether the overall pattern of this difference remain consistent in each domain of HRQoL; and what implications this variation, if any, would have for economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions. Methods: Using the 2006 round of Health Survey for England data (n = 13,241), this paper aims to examine the impact of smoking status on health-related quality of life in English population. Depending upon the nature of the EQ-5D data (i.e. tariff or domains), linear or logistic regression models were fitted to control for biology, clinical conditions, socio-economic background and lifestyle factors that an individual may have regardless of their smoking status. Age- and gender-specific predicted values according to smoking status are offered as the potential 'utility' values to be used in future economic evaluation models. Results: The observed difference of 0.1100 in EQ-5D scores between never-smokers (0.8839) and heavy-smokers (0.7739) reduced to 0.0516 after adjusting for biological, clinical, lifestyle and socioeconomic conditions. Heavy-smokers, when compared with never-smokers, were significantly more likely to report some/severe problems in all five domains - mobility (67%), self-care (70%), usual activity (42%), pain/discomfort (46%) and anxiety/depression (86%) -. 'Utility' values by age and gender for each category of smoking are provided to be used in the future economic evaluations. Conclusion: Smoking is significantly and negatively associated with health-related quality of life in English general population and the magnitude of this association is determined by the number of cigarettes smoked. The varying degree of this association, captured through instruments such as EQ-5D, may need to be fed into the design of future economic evaluations where the intervention being evaluated affects (e.g. tobacco control) or is affected (e.g. treatment for lung cancer) by individual's (or patients') smoking status