Assessing Sustainability in Real Urban Systems: The Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Area in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana

Urban systems have a number of factors (i.e., economic, social, and environmental) that can potentially impact growth, change, and transition. As such, assessing and managing these systems is a complex challenge. While, tracking trends of key variables may provide some insight, identifying the critical characteristics that truly impact the dynamic behavior of these systems is difficult. As an integrated approach to evaluate real urban systems, this work contributes to the research on scientific techniques for assessing sustainability. Specifically, it proposes a practical methodology based on the estimation of dynamic order, for identifying stable and unstable periods of sustainable or unsustainable trends with Fisher Information (FI) metric. As a test case, the dynamic behavior of the City, Suburbs, and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Cincinnati was evaluated by using 29 social and 11 economic variables to characterize each system from 1970 to 2009. Air quality variables were also selected to describe the MSA’s environmental component (1980–2009). Results indicate systems dynamic started to change from about 1995 for the social variables and about 2000 for the economic and environmental characteristics

Asymptomatic norovirus infection associated with swimming at a tropical beach: A prospective cohort study

<div><p>Background</p><p>Swimming in fecally-contaminated waterbodies can result in gastrointestinal infections. However, the pathogenic microorganisms responsible are not well understood because sporadic cases of illness are not reported completely, exposure information is often not collected, and epidemiology studies rely on self-reported symptoms. Noroviruses are considered a likely cause because they are found in high densities in sewage, resistant to wastewater treatment and survive in the environment. In this study, saliva samples were collected from subjects at a beach in Puerto Rico and tested for evidence of norovirus-specific IgG responses as an indicator of incident norovirus infection.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Saliva samples were collected from 1298 participants using an oral swab. Samples were collected on the day of the beach visit (S1); after 10–12 days (S2); and after three weeks (S3). Saliva was tested for IgG responses to GI.1 and GII.4 noroviruses using a microsphere based multiplex salivary immunoassay. Immunoconversion was defined as a four-fold increase in median fluorescence intensity (MFI) from S1 to S2 with the S3 sample at least three times above the S1 MFI.</p><p>Results</p><p>Thirty-four subjects (2.6%) immunoconverted to GI.1 or GII.4 norovirus. Swimmers who immersed their head in water had a higher rate of immunoconversion (3.4%), compared to either non-swimmers (0.0%, p = 0.003) or waders and non-swimmers combined (0.4%, Odds Ratio: 5.07, 95% Confidence Interval:1.48–17.00). Immunoconversion was not associated with gastrointestinal symptoms.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>This is the first study to demonstrate an association between swimming at a beach impacted by fecal contamination and asymptomatic norovirus infection. The findings implicate recreational water as potentially important transmission pathway for norovirus infection.</p></div

Risk factors for NoV immunoconversion- logistic regression models.

<p>Risk factors for NoV immunoconversion- logistic regression models.</p

NoV immunoconversions and swimming exposures.

<p>NoV immunoconversions and swimming exposures.</p

Anti-Norovirus salivary IgG response at S2 measured as median fluorescence intensity.

<p>(a) Anti-Norovirus GI.1 salivary IgG response at S2, cubic spline (5 knot) function of age, and age-specific upper 75% prediction interval. The term “Positive” is used to denote individuals who immunoconverted and the term “Negative” for individuals who did not immunoconvert. (b) Anti-Norovirus GII.4 salivary IgG response at S2, cubic spline (5 knot) function of age, and age-specific upper 75% prediction interval. The term “Positive” is used to denote individuals who immunoconverted and the term “Negative” for individuals who did not immunoconvert.</p

Factors associated with NoV immunoconversions^a.

<p>Factors associated with NoV immunoconversions<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0195056#t001fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

MFI ratios of salivary IgG responses to NoV at S2 (10–14 days) and S3 (30–40 days) to baseline (S1).

<p><b>(a)</b> GI.1 NoV IgG ratios to S1 for those who met immunoconversion criteria (blue lines) and a random sample (N = 30) of those who did not (orange lines). Solid horizontal line is shown at minimum S2/S1 ratio of four. The term “Positive” is used to denote individuals who immunoconverted and the term “Negative” for individuals who did not immunoconvert. <b>(b)</b> GII.4 NoV IgG ratios to S1 for those who met immunoconversion criteria (blue lines) and a random sample (N = 30) of those who did not (orange lines). Solid horizontal line is shown at minimum S2/S1 ratio of four. The term “Positive” is used to denote individuals who immunoconverted and the term “Negative” for individuals who did not immunoconvert.</p