Arsenic (As) Contamination in Different Food and Dietary Samples from Several Districts of Bangladesh and Arsenic (As) Detection, Mitigation and Toxicity Measurement and impact of Dietary Arsenic Exposure on Human Health

Objective: To determine the level of arsenic concentration in vegetables and other food categories in three selected areas of Pabna district and to estimate quantitatively the dietary arsenic exposure in one of the arsenic contaminated areas of Bangladesh.Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in CharRuppur, Char mirkamari and Lakshmikunda village of IshwardiUpzila in Pabna district. Ishwardi (Town) consists of 12 wardsand 37 mahallas. Arsenic was detected in the ADM Lab,Department of Pharmacology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh with Hydride Generation Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (HG-AAS; PG-990, PG Instruments Ltd. UK). Arsenic was detected by forming AsH3 at below pH 1.0 after the reaction of As with a solution of sodiumborohydride (NaBH4), sodium hydroxide (NaOH, M=40,000g/mol,) and 10% HCl. In this test, standard was maintained asAsV ranging from 0 to 12.5 μg/L.Results: A total of 120 vegetable samples, 15 rice samples and15 fish samples were collected from five different markets ofthree different villages of Pabna district and were tested forarsenic concentration. Findings demonstrated that the mean concentration of As in leafy vegetables (0.52 μg g-1) was significantly higher compared to those found in fruity (0.422μg g-1) and root & tuber vegetables (0.486 μg g-1).Conclusion: Underground Contaminated water was the major source for the As contamination of various products in Pabna.The arsenic levels were found higher among the leafy vegetables samples in comparison to fruit and root & tuber vegetables. Further studies will be conducted to search the genetic risk factors of arsenic toxicity in the population of the mostly affected people

Waiting to Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election: Evidence from a Multi-county Study

This paper is the result of a nationwide study of polling place dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Research teams, recruited from local colleges and universities and located in twenty-eight election jurisdictions across the United States, observed and timed voters as they entered the queue at their respective polling places and then voted. We report results about four specific polling place operations and practices: the length of the check-in line, the number of voters leaving the check-in line once they have joined it, the time for a voter to check in to vote (i.e., verify voter’s identification and obtain a ballot), and the time to complete a ballot. Long lines, waiting times, and times to vote are closely related to time of day (mornings are busiest for polling places). We found the recent adoption of photographic voter identification (ID) requirements to have a disparate effect on the time to check in among white and nonwhite polling places. In majority-white polling places, scanning a voter’s driver’s license speeds up the check-in process. In majority nonwhite polling locations, the effect of strict voter ID requirements increases time to check in, albeit modestly

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health