Mosquito fauna inhabiting water bodies in the urban environment of Córdoba city, Argentina, following a St. Louis encephalitis outbreak

An understanding of urban aquatic environments as mosquito larval habitats is necessary to prioritize sites for surveillance and control of arbovirus vectors in urban areas. Natural and artificial water bodies at ground level that may be larval mosquito habitats in Córdoba city, Argentina were surveyed. Data on the characteristics of aquatic sites and the presence and abundance of mosquito larvae and pupae were collected in the summer of 2006, coinciding with the first report of human WNV and following an outbreak of St. Louis encephalitis in 2005. Eight species in the genera Aedes, Culex, and Mansonia were identified. At 64.2% (34 of 53) of the sites, only one species was collected, while 3.8% (2 of 53) had three associated species, the highest richness found per site. Culex quinquefasciatus represented over 99% (out of 32,729) of the specimens. It was also the most widely distributed and detected under diverse habitat conditions. Although puddles and semi-permanent pools harbored a greater number of species, drainages and channels may be more relevant as risk factors from an epidemiological point of view because they showed the highest larval densities, mainly of Cx. quinquefasciatus (vector of SLE and WNV). Also, higher densities of this species were associated with stormwater runoff and sewage water, thus water management systems should be targeted and closely monitored for mosquito control purposes. © 2010 The Society for Vector Ecology.Fil: Pires, Diego Ariel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Gleiser, Raquel M.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinar de Biología Vegetal (P). Grupo Vinculado Centro de Relevamiento y Evaluación de Recursos Agrícolas y Naturales; Argentin

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries