BackgroundLeptospirosis, a spirochaetal zoonotic disease, is the cause of epidemics associated with high mortality in urban slum communities. Infection with pathogenic Leptospira occurs during environmental exposures and is traditionally associated with occupational risk activities. However, slum inhabitants reside in close proximity to environmental sources of contamination, suggesting that transmission during urban epidemics occurs in the household environment.Methods and FindingsA survey was performed to determine whether Leptospira infection clustered within households located in slum communities in the city of Salvador, Brazil. Hospital-based surveillance identified 89 confirmed cases of leptospirosis during an outbreak. Serum samples were obtained from members of 22 households with index cases of leptospirosis and 52 control households located in the same slum communities. The presence of anti-Leptospira agglutinating antibodies was used as a marker for previous infection. In households with index cases, 22 (30%) of 74 members had anti-Leptospira antibodies, whereas 16 (8%) of 195 members from control households had anti-Leptospira antibodies. Highest titres were directed against L. interrogans serovars of the Icterohaemorrhagiae serogroup in 95% and 100% of the subjects with agglutinating antibodies from case and control households, respectively. Residence in a household with an index case of leptospirosis was associated with increased risk (OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.13–13.12) of having had a Leptospira infection. Increased infection risk was found for all age groups who resided in a household with an index case, including children <15 years of age (P = 0.008).ConclusionsThis study identified significant household clustering of Leptospira infection in slum communities where recurrent epidemics of leptospirosis occur. The findings support the hypothesis that the household environment is an important transmission determinant in the urban slum setting. Prevention therefore needs to target sources of contamination and risk activities which occur in the places where slum inhabitants reside.

No abstract

Advances in the area of sample preparation are significant and have been growing significantly in recent years. This initial step of the analysis is essential and must be carried out properly, consisting of a complicated procedure with multiple stages. Consequently, it corresponds to a potential source of errors and will determine, at the end of the process, either a satisfactory result or a fail. One of the advances in this field includes the miniaturization of extraction techniques based on the conventional sample preparation procedures such as liquid‐liquid extraction and solid‐phase extraction. These modern techniques have gained prominence in the face of traditional methods since they minimize the consumption of organic solvents and the sample volume. As another feature, it is possible to reuse the sorbents, and its coupling to chromatographic systems might be automated. The review will emphasize the main techniques based on liquid‐phase microextraction, as well as those based upon the use of sorbents. The first group includes currently popular techniques such as single drop microextraction, hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction, and dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction. In the second group, solid‐phase microextraction techniques such as in‐tube solid‐phase microextraction, stir bar sorptive extraction, dispersive solid‐phase extraction, dispersive micro solid‐phase microextraction, and microextraction by packed sorbent are highlighted. These approaches, in common, aim the determination of analytes at low concentrations in complex matrices. This article describes some characteristics, recent advances, and trends on miniaturized sample preparation techniques, as well as their current applications in food, environmental, and bioanalysis fields.