Evaluation of Effectiveness between Two Different Facilities for Drinking Water Having Different Water Sources for Removal of Free-Living Amoeba in Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt

Background: Conventional drinking water treatment plants (CDWTPs) and Ground water (GWTP) are the main 2 types of drinking water treatment using freshwater as a source for drinking water in Egypt. Objective: The Egyptian standards for drinking water denied the presence of any type of living protozoa in drinking water produced for human use. Martials and methods: 48 water bodies were selected from Benha and Kaha districts in Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt. Mean turbidity, pH, conductivity, temperature, ammonia, nitrite, iron, manganese, magnesium and residual chlorine were recorded in each water body from two sites. Centrifuged samples were cultured on non-nutrient agar plates with Escherichia coli. Positive sample isolates were subjected to DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction using genus and speciesspecific primers targeting the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) and Mp2CL5 gene. Results: The prevalence of Naegleria species, N. fowleri and Acanthamoeba in the study area were 54.1% and 0% (N. fowleri and Acanthamoeba) of all sample examined. The removal of free-living amoebae from drinking water, it was shown that conventional DWTP (Benha) could get rid of 91% of FLAs present in the raw untreated water, while ground DWTP removed only 55.6% of these organisms. Conclusions: The conventional drinking water treatment system for surface water was better than that of only chlorine disinfection for ground water in removing free-living amoeba (FLAs). In general, the persistence of FLAs in drinking tap water unfortunately exerts public health hazards

Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10 years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37 years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020