Next Article in Journal
Inflammatory Responses to Non-Typeable Haemophilus influenzae Clinical Isolates from Invasive and Non-Invasive Infections
Previous Article in Journal
Seroprevalence and Risk Factors for Hepatitis B, HIV, and Syphilis Among Survivors of Sexual Violence in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Risk of Environmental Contamination by Gastrointestinal Parasites in Public Areas of the Central Plateau Microregion of Brazil: A Public Health Concern

by
Ana Julia de Almeida Martins
1,
Alice Caroline da Silva Rocha
1,
Zara Mariana de Assis-Silva
1,
Guilherme Oliveira Maia
1,
Bruna Samara Alves-Ribeiro
2,
Raiany Borges Duarte
1,
Iago de Sá Moraes
1,
Nicoly Ferreira de Urzedo
1,
Lizandra Fernandes-Silva
1,
Ana Paula Carvalho Gomes
1,
Samara Moreira Felizarda
3,
Mayra Parreira Oliveira
3,
Klaus Casaro Saturnino
2,
Hanstter Hallison Alves Rezende
4,
Rosângela Maria Rodrigues
5,
Dirceu Guilherme de Souza Ramos
1,* and
Ísis Assis Braga
1,3,*
1
Laboratory of Parasitology and Veterinary Clinical Analysis, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí 75801-615, Brazil
2
Laboratory of Veterinary Anatomical Pathology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí 75801-615, Brazil
3
Biosciences Basic Unit, University Center of Mineiros, Mineiros 75833-130, Brazil
4
Laboratory of Bacteriology and Mycology, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí 75801-615, Brazil
5
Laboratory of Parasitology, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí 75801-615, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2025, 14(3), 211; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14030211
Submission received: 29 January 2025 / Revised: 19 February 2025 / Accepted: 19 February 2025 / Published: 21 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biology, Epidemiology and Interactions of Parasitic Diseases)

Abstract

:
The risk of zoonotic parasitic infections is closely linked to direct and indirect interactions between animals and humans. The mutual coexistence of species in public spaces predisposes individuals to gastrointestinal parasitosis owing to various social and hygienic-sanitary factors. This study aimed to assess the risk of environmental contamination by gastrointestinal parasites in fecal samples collected from parks and public squares in 18 municipalities located in a microregion of the central plateau of Brazil, correlating the collection with the population size of each municipality. We collected 536 soil fecal samples from 117 randomly selected public areas across a 56,111.874 km2 region. Eggs, cysts, and oocysts were detected using the Willis flotation technique and the Hoffman’s spontaneous sedimentation method. The Hoffman’s analysis revealed that 70.3% of the fecal samples were infected across 91.5% of the sampled areas. Identified parasites included the members of the family Ancylostomatidae (56.5%), Toxocara spp. (6.2%), Trichuris spp. (1.7%), Strongyloides spp. (0.2%), Dipylidium caninum (25.8%), Spirometra spp. (0.4%), Taeniidae (0.2%), Platynosomum fastosum (0.6%), Trematoda (0.2%), Giardia spp. (3.2%), Cystoisospora spp. (5.6%), Sarcocystis spp. (0.2%), and Entamoeba spp. (2.4%). The presence of positive fecal samples in public areas and municipalities correlated with populations of up to 10,000 inhabitants (p = 0.023). Areas contaminated with feces were 63.4% more likely to contain parasites than other areas (odds ratio 1.6336). Favorable environmental factors combined with inadequate sanitary management contribute to a high risk of environmental contamination, representing a significant zoonotic potential and highlighting the need for improved public health policies and preventive measures.

1. Introduction

Public spaces, including parks and squares, provide environments for leisure and socialization, contributing to the well-being of both human life and companion animals. The movement of dogs and cats in these areas is common, whether accompanied by their owners or living as strays, which often leads to social problems, as many of these animals can serve as pathogen reservoirs [1,2,3]. Studies in Brazil and around the world demonstrate a prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in dogs ranging from 16.1% to 62.2% and in cats ranging from 3.3% to 90.9%, according to Souza et al. [3].
Fecal contamination is one of the major concerns in these environments because feces can serve as a source of infection for both animal and human populations [4]. Previous research has demonstrated a wide variety of gastrointestinal parasites, many with zoonotic potential, in fecal material dispersed throughout the environment [5,6,7,8,9,10], but studies on environmental contamination are still scarce, especially in Brazil. In some tropical and subtropical regions, contamination is endemic due to climate and socioeconomic factors, including poor sanitation and lack of local hygiene, resulting in the persistence of parasites in the soil [11].
The high prevalence rate of fecal contamination by gastrointestinal parasites is associated with a set of factors such as the presence of many domestic animals in the country, failures in the diagnosis and treatment of animals, and insufficient sanitary hygiene measures. Brazil ranks third in the number of pets globally, with 62.2 million dogs and 30.8 million cats. Approximately 25% of these animals are abandoned, exceeding the 30 million mark of stray animals whose health is neglected, making them carriers of numerous pathogens [12].
The infective forms of zoonotic gastrointestinal parasites in dogs and cats contribute to the development of neglected tropical diseases, such as soil-transmitted helminth infections, which are among the most common infections globally, affecting 24% of the world’s population [13,14]. This scenario is particularly concerning in children and immunocompromised individuals [15].
Therefore, epidemiological studies are important to assess the risk of environmental contamination by gastrointestinal parasites in fecal samples collected from public areas to correlate possible epidemiological factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Sampling

The study site was the southwestern microregion of Goiás, located on the central plateau of Brazil, with a territorial extension of 56,111.874 km2 and an estimated population of 536,973. The region includes the municipalities of Aparecida do Rio Doce, Aporé, Caiapônia, Castelândia, Chapadão do Céu, Doverlândia, Jataí (and its two districts, Estância and Naveslândia), Maurilândia, Mineiros, Montividiu, Palestina de Goiás, Perolândia, Portelândia, Rio Verde, Santa Helena, Santa Rita do Araguaia, Santo Antônio da Barra, and Serranópolis (Figure 1) [16,17]. The climate is tropical semi-humid, with an average annual temperature and precipitation of 20–28 °C and 2300 mm, respectively [16,17].
Between March 2023 and July 2024, 117 public squares and recreational parks were selected to ensure that the sampling included the central and peripheral areas of the 18 municipalities in the microregion. Visits to the cities were carried out once during the study period, according to the availability of vehicles to carry out the collections. In each collection, we went with several collection groups that divided up and went to different squares. During morning inspections lasting 15–20 min per area, fresh fecal samples were collected from the environment, avoiding portions in direct contact with the soil and dried, trampled, or rain-diluted feces. The samples were stored in collection containers, identified, and refrigerated at an average temperature of 8 °C for up to 24 h. The samples were selected when they were similar to dog and cat feces. We also observed the places where dogs and cats usually defecate in the squares.

2.2. Sample Processing

Fecal samples were subjected to coproparasitological techniques, including the Willis Mollay flotation method [18] and Hoffman’s spontaneous sedimentation method [19,20]. The structures were observed via optical microscopy using an Eclipse E200 instrument (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). Eggs, cysts, and oocysts were identified using the previously established criteria [21].

2.3. Data Analysis

The prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in environmental fecal samples from the sampled area was calculated using a 95% confidence interval (CI) [22]. Population size was evaluated as a risk factor for fecal contamination in public squares using the chi-square test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Subsequently, the odds ratio (OR) was calculated for municipalities where the population size was correlated with contamination in public areas. The analyses were conducted using Epi Info™ 7.2 version software (CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Environmental Fecal Samples

Of the sampled areas, fecal contamination was detected in 91.5% (107/117), with 377 of the 536 fecal samples (70.3%) containing at least one immature form of a parasite (eggs, cysts, or oocysts). Table 1 presents the prevalence of fecal contamination in each municipality.

3.2. Diversity of Parasites Detected in Fecal Samples

Nematode eggs of the members of the family Ancylostomatidae (56.5%), Toxocara spp. (6.2%), Trichuris spp. (1.7%), and Strongyloides spp. (0.2%) were identified. Cestode eggs included Dipylidium caninum (25.8%), Spirometra spp. (0.4%), and Taeniidae (0.2%). Trematode eggs included Platynosomum fastosum (0.6%) and an unidentified Trematoda egg (0.2%). Protozoa included cysts of Giardia spp. (3.2%) and Entamoeba spp. (2.4%), and oocysts of Cystoisospora spp. (5.6%) and Sarcocystis spp. (0.2%). Table 2 presents the distribution of parasites in the sampled municipalities.

3.3. Risk Associated with Area Contamination

The evaluation of population size revealed a statistically significant correlation between the presence of positive fecal samples in public areas, municipalities, and districts with ≤10,000 inhabitants (p = 0.023) and municipalities with populations > 100,000 inhabitants (p < 0.001). Municipalities with populations of 10,001–30,000 and 30,001–100,000 inhabitants did not show statistically significant correlations with area contamination (p = 0.181 and p = 0.819, respectively). The OR for municipalities and districts with ≤10,000 inhabitants was 1.6336 (95% CI = 1.0671–2.501), indicating a 63.4% higher likelihood of feces containing parasitic forms in public areas in these regions than in other regions. The OR for municipalities with populations > 100,000 inhabitants was 0.5177 (95% CI = 0.3536–0.7579), indicating a 48.2% lower likelihood of feces containing parasitic forms in public areas in these regions than in other regions.

4. Discussion

4.1. High Prevalence of Parasites in Environmental Fecal Samples: An Overview of the Study Area

Our study revealed a considerable risk of environmental contamination by gastrointestinal parasites in public areas of the central plateau of Brazil, as parasites were detected in environmental fecal samples in >90% of the sampled areas. Notably, the study area in our research was 56,111.874 km2, exceeding the area of some countries such as Switzerland (41,290 km2) and Belgium (30,519 km2) and more than half the area of Portugal (92,090 km2). Therefore, the present study area is sufficient to encompass vast ecological and socioeconomic diversity. Hence, our results provide valuable data for the development of more effective public policies to control and prevent zoonoses in areas with territorial, environmental, socioeconomic, and population diversity.
Clinical epidemiological data have shown that subclinical infections from gastrointestinal parasites are widespread in domestic populations of dogs and cats [3,23,24,25]. The absence of clinical signs hinders the early identification of parasitism and proper and supervised treatment. In particular, the indiscriminate administration of antiparasitic medications to pets without veterinary guidance is common among some owners, leading to failure in parasite elimination and the development of resistance mechanisms, making these animals persistent sources of infection [26,27,28,29,30].
Inadequate management of environmental sanitation is associated with parasite contamination in urban areas [31]. The use of disinfectants based on sodium hypochlorite, quaternary ammonia, and phenols for environmental disinfection is effective [32]. Veterinarians play an important role at this stage, prescribing products and raising awareness among pet owners about the importance of interrupting the life cycle of parasites in indoor environments [3].
In a previous study, the use of a collar and the owner’s guidance reduced the presence of dog fecal samples in urban parks in the city of Calgary [4]. This strategy could serve as a preventive measure to reduce environmental contamination, alongside proper feces removal and disposal. Interestingly, in the present study, only one area (1/117) had a policy intended to raise awareness regarding the disposal of animal feces. Furthermore, few of the studied areas had physical containment in recreational areas, such as sand courts and playgrounds, to reduce access to stray animals, minimizing the risk of environmental contamination (Figure 2). There are no government notices for feces to be collected and thrown in the trash; consequently, no penalties are applied to pet owners.
Dogs and cats are considered to be the causative agents of environmental contamination due to the dissemination of geohelminth eggs with zoonotic potential [33]. Studies in Brazil [2,3] already point to this reality through the diagnosis of zoonotic parasites in feces collected from animals, a concern also evident in a similar study in Poland [34] with the detection of zoonotic species in these animals, similar to our study, such as Ancylostomatidae and Toxocara. Environmental studies are still scarce, but they equally demonstrate the importance of this environmental approach. Most studies on environmental contamination indicate the occurrence of Ancylostomatidae and Toxocara in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe [11], with very few approaches that focus on a broader diagnosis and on important but neglected pathogens, such as Echinococcus and Taenia, described in environmental contamination in Iran [35]. This is partly related to the use of only one copro-parasitological diagnostic technique or the low number of samples per study. Our study focused on a robust sampling design to identify the greatest possible diversity of pathogens, in addition to the use of sedimentation and flotation techniques that allowed the identification of high and low-density eggs and oocysts.
Another notable factor is the climatic characteristics of the region, as the tropical climate provides a favorable environment for the viability of these parasites, prolonging their infectivity and increasing transmission risk. Soil moisture and the frequency of precipitation are crucial for preventing the desiccation of eggs and oocysts, whereas moderately high temperatures accelerate embryonic development, favoring infectivity [36]. Although our collections occurred at different times of the year, due to the territorial extension covered, the Brazilian Cerrado is a biome characterized by little impact by seasonal changes as in temperate zone biomes. It is noted that the temperature variation is small [16,17] compared to areas where we clearly perceive summer, autumn, winter, and spring.

4.2. Diversity of Parasites in Environmental Fecal Samples and Health Impacts

The range and variety of the identified parasites with zoonotic implications were notable, with the exception of Cystoisospora spp. and Platynosomum fastosum, which are associated only with infections in companion animals [3,37,38,39].
The members of Ancylostomatidae were the most prevalent geohelminth, identified in 56.5% of fecal samples. The risk of environmental contamination by this parasite extends beyond the risk of cutaneous larva migrans development from Ancylostoma braziliense and Ancylostoma caninum in humans, as the latter has been identified in fecal samples in its adult form, causing eosinophilic enteritis [40,41]. Ancylostoma ceylanicum has been reported in South American countries that were previously considered free from this parasite. It is an emerging public health threat capable of causing anemia due to iron deficiency and malnutrition, particularly in children [42].
Despite lower prevalence rates, fecal contamination by Toxocara spp., Trichuris spp., and Strongyloides spp. should not be neglected, as they can lead to significant geohelminthiasis, specifically in children and immunocompromised individuals [14]. Antonopoulos et al. described no evidence of a correlation between estimated soil contamination and the seroprevalence of toxocariasis in humans. However, a positive correlation was observed between Toxocara spp. prevalence in cats and dogs and seroprevalence in humans [43]. This finding indicates a public health concern, as the global prevalence in dogs is estimated at 11.1% [44], and the disease is often underdiagnosed in the human population owing to the nonspecific nature of its clinical presentation, which can vary from ophthalmological to systemic disorders. Toxocara spp. has also been associated with cognitive impairment in school-age children [43].
The risk of environmental contamination by Trichuris species is likely associated with Trichuris vulpis. Dogs are the definitive host of T. vulpis, which has zoonotic potential. T. vulpis has also been associated with visceral larva migrans [45]. The definite hosts of T. trichiura are humans and primates, and it has rarely been reported in dog feces. Its zoonotic transmission risk requires further investigation, as it is considered the second most prevalent parasite in human geohelmintiasis worldwide [46]. Strongyloidiasis, caused by Strongyloides stercoralis, is another neglected tropical disease common in tropical and subtropical zones. Although the prevalence of S. stercoralis in this study was 0.2%, its relevance should be considered with respect to global prevalence data demonstrating 6%, 13.3%, and 8.1% infection in dogs, cats, and humans, respectively [47,48,49].
Dipylidium caninum was identified in 25.8% of the contaminated fecal samples. The presence of D. caninum egg capsules in the soil and cohabitation with companion animals represents an indirect risk of infection to humans, as the infective form is only present in the intermediate hosts, such as fleas and lice. These hosts can be accidentally ingested due to poor hygiene habits and activities on contaminated ground, such as playing and eating. However, infection is uncommon in humans and primarily occurs in children in an asymptomatic form with gastrointestinal clinical presentations [50].
Considering the morphological similarity and limitations of the technique used, the eggs identified from the Taeniidae family may belong to the genus Taenia, whose species identified in dogs and cats do not pose a zoonotic risk, and Echinococcus spp., which include zoonotic species causing cystic and alveolar echinococcosis. The high molecular prevalence of canine echinococcosis in South America (66.03%) reinforces concerns about the risk of environmental contamination [51,52].
The prevalence of fecal contamination by Giardia spp. cysts in the environmental samples in this study (3.2%) corresponds to <10% global prevalence of infections by Giardia in dogs and cats, which may, however, vary according to the socioeconomic characteristics of the study area [53]. The zoonotic potential of Giardia duodenalis has been extensively reviewed, as molecular investigations and characterization of a variety of distinct genotypes have revealed patterns of circulation of these genotypes in animals and humans. In Brazil, giardiasis in humans is neglected, reaching extremely high prevalence rates, above 78% in the 1990s, occurring in adults and children, and with a high dispersion of cysts in the water of several cities [54]. The current hypotheses suggest that the genotypes of G. duodenalis predominant in dogs (C and D) and cats (F) pose a low zoonotic risk compared to those identified in non-human primates, horses, rabbits, guinea pigs, chinchillas, and beavers. Genotypes A and B that have been related to human infections were identified infecting dogs and cats, respectively. Considering that transmission of this pathogen is associated with food and water contaminated with cysts [54], and that zoonotic genotypes have been described in dogs and cats, environmental contamination with Giardia spp. cysts is a problem for two reasons: (1) in recreational areas such as squares and parks, people sit on the ground and on lawns, as well as children playing in these areas or having picnics, which can contaminate hands and generate infections; (2) Giardia spp. cysts can be carried by rain, reach water collections (rivers, streams, and lakes) that are used for human activities, and also generate infections. Although some authors have associated these findings with coprophagic habits and spillback phenomena, the zoonotic risk should not be ignored [53,55].
Cysts of Entamoeba spp. in environmental fecal samples may pose risks to animal and human health. Specifically, Entamoeba histolytica cysts are not only zoonotic but also pathogenic, causing severe clinical conditions in humans, such as bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and liver abscesses [56]. While environmental contamination favors the transmission of this protozoan to susceptible hosts via its direct lifecycle, other parasites identified in this study, such as Sarcocystis spp. and Spirometra spp., have a low direct zoonotic risk, as their transmission is associated with the ingestion of intermediate hosts [57,58]. However, the presence of these two pathogens indicates circulation in the study area and a potential zoonotic risk.

4.3. Perspectives on Public Policies in One Health Education

The risk of environmental contamination by gastrointestinal parasites is a significant public health threat, especially in recreational areas such as public squares and parks [5,6,7,8,9,10]. The neglect of responsible pet ownership, allowing unrestricted access to streets, failures in sanitary management, uncontrolled birth rates, and animal abandonment are detrimental to animal and human health, as these animals can serve as reservoirs for various pathogens [59]. Laws in Brazil are intended to ensure the integrity and well-being of companion animals, with detention penalties and fines for non-compliance [60,61,62]. However, many pet owners do not practice responsible pet ownership [3].
Teixeira et al. highlighted the direct relationship between the lack of basic sanitation and the spread of gastrointestinal parasites in Brazil. Associated risk factors included contaminated soil, vulnerability of minority groups, housing conditions, lack of water, poor water quality used for drinking, and absence of sewage systems [63].
The risk analysis performed in the present study revealed a higher risk of environmental contamination by gastrointestinal parasites in areas with ≤10,000 inhabitants and a lower risk in areas with >100,000 inhabitants. These findings indicate the necessity to address socioeconomic differences involving sanitation and health education issues. In Brazil, most small municipalities have inferior basic sanitation infrastructure compared to larger municipalities [64]. This infrastructure dichotomy is reflected in the risk analysis and is also influenced by the level of information and health education in the respective municipalities.
In more populous municipalities, the majority of animals in public areas are leashed and guided by their owners, indicating a group of animals with better access to prophylactic protocols and waste removal practices [4]. In contrast, in less populated municipalities, the presence of unleased and/or stray animals is more common, which ultimately increases the risk.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the high risk of environmental contamination based on the range and variety of gastrointestinal parasites detected in fecal material, particularly in less populous municipalities. The findings emphasize the potential threat of zoonotic pathogen transmission to the human population in the study regions, focusing on the geohelminths Ancylostomatidae and Toxocara spp., as well as the enteric protozoa Giardia spp. and Entamoeba spp. because of their direct life cycles. D. caninum, whose transmission has been linked to the presence of intermediate hosts, was identified as the second most prevalent parasite after hookworms, reinforcing the link between maintenance of the cycle and the risk of human exposure.
The public health threat of infection by zoonotic enteric parasites is increasing, particularly in urban environments. Therefore, all socioeconomic aspects must be considered in the development of public policies for sanitation and health education to devise multidisciplinary approaches based on the One Health concept aimed at reducing the risks associated with environmental contamination by parasites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, supervision, and writing—review and editing: Í.A.B. and D.G.d.S.R. Data collection and methodology: A.J.d.A.M., A.C.d.S.R., Z.M.d.A.-S., G.O.M., B.S.A.-R., R.B.D., I.d.S.M., N.F.d.U., L.F.-S., A.P.C.G., S.M.F. and M.P.O. Data validation and data curation: K.C.S., D.G.d.S.R., H.H.A.R., R.M.R. and Í.A.B. Investigation and writing—original draft preparation: A.J.d.A.M. and Í.A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

A.J.d.A.M., A.C.d.S.R., Z.M.d.A.-S., B.S.A.-R., R.B.D., I.d.S.M. and L.F.-S. received funding from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. G.O.M. and N.F.d.U. received scholarships from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Financial support was also provided by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás, Protocol EQU2023101000018 and AUX2024361000033.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Wellington Rezende Lima for technical support in maintaining the pickup trucks used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lima, N.D.; Raimundo, D.C.; Souza, V.A.F.; Aguiar, J.M. Occurrence of gastrointestinal parasites in dogs and cats domiciliated in Santos, SP, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2021, 30, e011721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ramos, D.G.S.; Zocco, B.K.A.; Torres, M.M.; Braga, Í.A.; Pacheco, R.C.; Sinkoc, A.L. Helminths parasites of stray dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) from Cuiabá, Midwestern of Brazil. Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. 2015, 36, 889–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Souza, J.B.B.; Silva, Z.M.d.A.; Alves-Ribeiro, B.S.; Moraes, I.d.S.; Alves-Sobrinho, A.V.; Saturnino, K.C.; Ferraz, H.T.; Machado, M.R.F.; Braga, Í.A.; Ramos, D.G.S. Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites, Risk Factors and Zoonotic Aspects in Dog and Cat Populations from Goiás, Brazil. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mori, K.; Rock, M.; Mccormack, G.; Liccioli, S.; Giunchi, D.; Marceau, D.; Stefanakis, E.; Massolo, A. Fecal contamination of urban parks by domestic dogs and tragedy of the Commons. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 3462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bricarello, P.A.; Silva, A.; Oliveira, T.; Lima, L.M. Parasites with zoonotic potential in pets feces on the beaches of greater Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2020, 57, e168442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Filho, C.R.C.U.; Santos, K.K.F.; Lima, T.A.R.F.; Alves, L.C.; Carvalho, G.A.; Ramos, R.A.N. Gastrointestinal parasites in dogs and cats in line with the One Health’ approach. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2022, 74, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oliveira, B.S.; Silva, J.V.; Oliveira, H.B. Nematódeos de interesse médico veterinário em represa urbana no município de Catalão, no sudeste do estado de Goiás, Brasil. J. Health Biol. Sci. 2022, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Blackburn, C.C.; Yan, S.M.; McCormick, D.; Herrera, L.N.; Iordanov, R.B.; Bailey, M.D.; Bottazzi, M.E.; Hotez, P.J.; Mejia, R. Poverty associated with the environmental contamination of gastrointestinal parasites in the Southern United States. medRxiv 2023, preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tamponi, C.; Knoll, S.; Tosciri, G.; Salis, F.; Dessì, G.; Cappai, M.G.; Varcasia, A.; Scala, A. Environmental Contamination by Dog Feces in Touristic Areas of Italy: Parasitological Aspects and Zoonotic Hazards. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 1143–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Delahoy, M.J.; Wodnik, B.; McAliley, L.; Penakalapati, G.; Swarthout, J.; Freeman, M.C.; Levy, K. Pathogens transmitted in animal feces in low-and middle-income countries. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. 2018, 221, 661–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Traversa, D.; Frangipane di Regalbono, A.; Di Cesare, A.; La Torre, F.; Drake, J.; Pietrobelli, M. Environmental contamination by canine geohelminths. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Editora Stilo. Available online: https://www.editorastilo.com.br/pet-food/censo-pet-1393-milhoes-de-animais-de-estimacao-no-brasil/ (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  13. Pisarski, K. The global burden of disease of zoonotic parasitic diseases: Top 5 contenders for priority consideration. Trop. Med. Iinfect. Dis. 2019, 4, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/soil-transmitted-helminth-infections/ (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  15. Ahmed, M. Intestinal Parasitic Infections in 2023. Gastroenterol. Res. 2023, 16, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Companhia de Desenvolvimento dos Vales do São Francisco e do Parnaíba (CODEVASF). 2021. Available online: https://www.codevasf.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/institucional/biblioteca-geraldo-rocha/publicacoes/outras-publicacoes/caderno-de-caracterizacao-estado-de-goias.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  17. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Available online: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/4714 (accessed on 23 December 2024).
  18. Willis, H.H. A simple levitation method for the detection of hookworm ova. Med. J. Aust. 1921, 8, 375–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hoffman, W.A.; Pons, J.A.; Janer, J.L. Sedimentation concentration method in Schistosomiasis mansoni. PR. J. Public Health Trop. Med. 1934, 9, 283–289. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffmann, R.P. Manual de Diagnóstico de Parasitismo Veterinário, 1st ed.; Sulina: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zajac, A.M.; Conboy, G.A. Livro-Texto de Parasitologia Clínica Veterinária, 6th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2012; p. 368. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bush, A.O.; Lafferty, K.D.; Lotz, J.M.; Shostak, A.W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J. Parasitol. 1997, 83, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hotez, P.J.; Wilkins, P.P. Toxocariasis: America’s most common neglected infection of poverty and a helminthiasis of global importance? PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2009, 3, e400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Šmit, I.; Potočnjak, D.; Matijatko, V.; Torti, M.; Jović, I.; Grden, D.; Crnogaj, M.; Beck, R. The Influence of Giardia duodenalis on the Occurrence of Clinical Signs in Dogs. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gennari, S.M.; Ferreira, J.I.; Pena, H.F.; Labruna, M.B.; Azevedo, S.D. Frequency of gastrointestinal parasites in cats seen at the University of São Paulo Veterinary Hospital, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2016, 25, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nuñez Garrido, C.C.; Martínez Colmán, L.; Britos Cano, A. Medicação sem prescrição em animais de companhia em Curuguaty, Abordagem da saúde única. Pubvet 2024, 18, e1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Batista, C.L.; Cabeças, R.; Araújo-Paredes, C.; Pereira, M.A.; Mateus, T.L. Smells Like Anthelmintic Resistance-Gastrointestinal Prevalence, Burden and Diversity in Dogs from Portugal. Pathogens 2024, 13, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Souza, P.M.C. Prevalência e fatores de risco associados às parasitoses intestinais em cães e gatos de Hospital Veterinário e de cães do Programa de Controle de Leishmaniose. Master’s Thesis, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Oliveira, G.G.S.; Santos, K.S.F.; Santos, R.S.; Baccin, A.O. Resistência parasitária a anti-helmínticos e Saúde Única: Desafios e oportunidades na integração de abordagens de saúde humana e animal. Revista Ibero-Americana de Humanidades Ciências e Educação 2024, 10, 7417–7431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carvalho, C.; Araújo, D.; Bonfim, J.; Vieira, D.; Azevedo, J. Incidência de medicação em cães e gatos por seus responsáveis sem orientação médico-veterinária: Levantamento em um hospital veterinário universitário. Encicl. Biosf. 2012, 8, 1035. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rebenaque, L.L.; Fernández, S.L.; Jiménez, F.M.; Dasi, L.M.; Marin, C.; Vega, S.; Manzanares, E.M.; Fariñas, F. Zoonotic Parasites in Playgrounds in Southern Spain: A One Health Approach. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pereira, T.L.; Borges, D.L.; Torquato, T.G.; Andrade, J.F.C.M.; Faria, M.T.; Ituassu, L.T.; Martins, I.P.; Barbosa, F.S. Eficiência de desinfetantes na inibição da embriogênese de larvas em ovos de Toxocara canis. Pubvet 2023, 17, e1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nijsse, R.; Overgaauw, P.; Ploeger, H.; Mughini-Gras, L. Sources of environmental contamination with Toxocara spp.: An omnipresent parasite. In Advances in Parasitology; Dvorak, J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 109, pp. 585–614. [Google Scholar]
  34. Szwabe, K.; Blaszkowska, J. Stray dogs and cats as potential sources of soil contamination with zoonotic parasites. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2017, 24, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shamsaddini, S.; Schneider, C.; Dumendiak, S.; Aghassi, H.; Kamyabi, H.; Akhlaghi, E.; Wassermann, M.; Harandi, M.F.; Deplazes, P.; Romig, T. Environmental contamination with feces of free-roaming dogs and the risk of transmission of Echinococcus and Taenia species in urban regions of southeastern Iran. Parasit. Vectors 2024, 17, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ribeiro, C.M.; Lima, D.E.; Katagiri, S. Infecções por parasitos gastrintestinais em cães domiciliados e suas implicações na transmissão zoonótica. Vet. Zootec. 2015, 22, 238–244. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ragozo, A.M.A.; Muradian, V.; Silva, J.C.R.; Caravieri, R.; Amajoner, V.R.; Magnabosco, C.; Gennari, S.M. Ocorrência de parasitos gastrintestinais em fezes de gatos das cidades de São Paulo e Guarulhos. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2002, 39, 244–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lima, R.L.; Pacheco, R.C.; Mendonça, A.J.; Néspoli, P.E.B.; Morita, L.H.M.; Almeida, A.D.B.P.F.; Sousa, V.R.F. Platynosomum fastosum in domestic cats in Cuiabá, Midwest region of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2021, 24, 100582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ramos, D.G.D.S.; Santos, A.R.G.L.O.; Freitas, L.D.C.; Braga, Í.A.; Silva, E.P.D.; Soares, L.M.C.; Antoniassi, N.A.B.; Furlan, F.H.; Pacheco, R.D.C. Feline platynosomiasis: Analysis of the association of infection levels with pathological and biochemical findings. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2017, 26, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Furtado, L.F.V.; Dias, L.T.O.; Rodrigues, T.O.; Silva, V.J.D.; Oliveira, V.N.G.M.; Rabelo, É.M.L. Egg genotyping reveals the possibility of patent Ancylostoma caninum infection in human intestine. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Prociv, P.; Croese, J. Human enteric infection with Ancylostoma caninum: Hookworms reappraised in the light of a “new” zoonosis. Acta Trop. 1996, 62, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gerber, V.; Le Govic, Y.; Ramade, C.; Chemla, C.; Hamane, S.; Desoubeaux, G.; Degeilh, B.; Abou-Bacar, A.; Pfaff, A.W.; Candolfi, E.; et al. Ancylostoma ceylanicum as the second most frequent hookworm species isolated in France in travellers returning from tropical areas. J. Travel Med. 2021, 28, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Antonopoulos, A.; Giannelli, A.; Morgan, E.R.; Charlier, J. Quantifying the neglected: Initial estimation of the global burden and economic impact of human toxocariasis. Curr. Res. Parasitol. Vector Borne Dis. 2024, 21, 100180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rostami, A.; Riahi, S.M.; Hofmann, A.; Ma, G.; Wang, T.; Behniafar, H.; Taghipour, A.; Fakhri, Y.; Spotin, A.; Chang, B.C.H.; et al. Global prevalence of Toxocara infection in dogs. Adv. Parasitol. 2020, 109, 561–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sakano, T.; Hamamoto, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Sakata, Y.; Tsuji, M.; Usui, T. Visceral larva migrans caused by Trichuris vulpis. Arch. Dis. Child. 1980, 55, 631–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shringi, S.; Shah, D.H.; Carney, K.; Verma, A. Pathogen Detection and Resistome Analysis in Healthy Shelter Dogs Using Whole Metagenome Sequencing. Pathogens 2025, 14, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Eslahi, A.V.; Hashemipour, S.; Olfatifar, M.; Houshmand, E.; Hajialilo, E.; Mahmoudi, R.; Badri, M.; Ketzi, J.K. Global prevalence and epidemiology of Strongyloides stercoralis in dogs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasit. Vectors 2022, 15, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhao, H.; Bradbury, R.S. Feline strongyloidiasis: An insight into its global prevalence and transmission cycle. One Health 2024, 19, 100842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Buonfrate, D.; Bisanzio, D.; Giorli, G.; Odermatt, P.; Fürst, T.; Greenaway, C.; French, M.; Reithinger, R.; Gobbi, F.; Montresor, A.; et al. The Global Prevalence of Strongyloides stercoralis Infection. Pathogens 2020, 9, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Rousseau, J.; Castro, A.; Novo, T.; Maia, C. Dipylidium caninum in the twenty-first century: Epidemiological studies and reported cases in companion animals and humans. Parasit. Vectors 2022, 15, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Woolsey, I.D.; Miller, A.L. Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato and Echinococcus multilocularis: A review. Res. Vet. Sci. 2021, 135, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shams, M.; Khazaei, S.; Naserifar, R.; Shariatzadeh, S.A.; Anvari, D.; Montazeri, F.; Pirestani, M.; Mijidiaani, H. Global distribution of Echinococcus granulosus genotypes in domestic and wild canids: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasitology 2022, 149, 1147–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barbosa, A.D.; Egan, S.; Feng, Y.; Xiao, L.; Ryan, U. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in cats and dogs: What is the real zoonotic risk? Curr. Res. Parasitol. Vector-Borne Dis. 2023, 4, 100158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Coelho, C.H.; Durigan, M.; Leal, D.A.G.; Schneider, A.B.; Franco, R.M.B.; Singer, S.M. Giardiasis as a neglected disease in Brazil: Systematic review of 20 years of publications. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0006005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sun, J.; Qin, Z.; Fu, Y.; Qin, H.; Sun, M.; Dong, H.; Chao, L.; Zhang, L.; Li, J. Assessment of potential zoonotic transmission of Giardia duodenalis from dogs and cats. One Health 2023, 17, 100651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lin, F.H.; Chen, B.C.; Chou, Y.C.; Chien, W.C.; Chung, C.H.; Hsieh, C.J.; Yu, C.P. The Epidemiology of Entamoeba histolytica Infection and Its Associated Risk Factors among Domestic and Imported Patients in Taiwan during the 2011–2020 Period. Medicina 2022, 58, 820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Nakasato, F.H.; Saito, A.S.; Taneno, J.C.; Garcia, M.M.; Neves, M.F. Sarcocystis spp: Revisão de literatura. Rev. Cient. Etrônica Med. Vet. 2008, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  58. Liu, W.; Gong, T.; Chen, S.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, H.; He, J.; Wu, Y.; Li, F.; Liu, Y. Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Prevention of Sparganosis in Asia. Animals 2022, 12, 1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Queiroz, F.K.N.; Rodrigues, K.S.; Souza, O.S.; Minguins, W.G.; Yamaguchi, H.K.L.; Duarte, C.S. Abandono de animais no Brasil: Consequências geradas à sociedade. Rev. Ensino Saude Biotecnol. Amazon. 2020, 2, 56–59. [Google Scholar]
  60. LEI, No. 13.426, DE 30 DE MARÇO DE 2017. 2017. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/lei/l13426.htm (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  61. LEI, No. 9.605, DE 12 DE FEVEREIRO DE 1998. 1998. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9605.htm (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  62. LEI, No. 14.064, DE 29 DE SETEMBRO DE 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2019-2022/2020/Lei/L14064.htm (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  63. Teixeira, P.A.; Fantinatti, M.; Gonçalves, M.P.; Silva, J.S. Parasitoses intestinais e saneamento básico no Brasil: Estudo de revisão integrativa. Braz. J. Dev. 2020, 6, 22867–22890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Silva dos Santos, F.F.; Daltro Filho, J.; Machado, C.T.; Vasconcelos, J.F.; Feitosa, F.R.S. O desenvolvimento do saneamento básico no Brasil e as consequências para a saúde pública. Rev. Bras. Meio Amb. 2018, 4, 241–251. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Sample area of municipalities in the southwestern microregion of Goiás, located on the central plateau of Brazil. ARD: Aparecida do Rio Doce; Ap: Aporé; Ca: Caiapônia; Cast: Castelândia; ChC: Chapadão do Céu; Do: Doverlândia; Ja: Jataí; Es: Estância (district of Jataí); Na: Naveslândia (district of Jataí); Ma: Maurilândia; Mi: Mineiros; Mo: Montividiu; PG: Palestina de Goiás; Pe: Perolândia; Po: Portelândia; RV: Rio Verde; SHG: Santa Helena de Goiás; SRA: Santa Rita do Araguaia; SAB: Santo Antônio da Barra; Se: Serranópolis. Source: R Program.
Figure 1. Sample area of municipalities in the southwestern microregion of Goiás, located on the central plateau of Brazil. ARD: Aparecida do Rio Doce; Ap: Aporé; Ca: Caiapônia; Cast: Castelândia; ChC: Chapadão do Céu; Do: Doverlândia; Ja: Jataí; Es: Estância (district of Jataí); Na: Naveslândia (district of Jataí); Ma: Maurilândia; Mi: Mineiros; Mo: Montividiu; PG: Palestina de Goiás; Pe: Perolândia; Po: Portelândia; RV: Rio Verde; SHG: Santa Helena de Goiás; SRA: Santa Rita do Araguaia; SAB: Santo Antônio da Barra; Se: Serranópolis. Source: R Program.
Pathogens 14 00211 g001
Figure 2. Overview of public squares and parks in the southwest region of Goiás, in the central plateau of Brazil. (a) Public awareness policy for animal feces disposal in a public square. (b) Domestic cat defecating near a children’s recreational area, which lacks physical containment. (c) Fecal material (white arrow) on the ground near the playground.
Figure 2. Overview of public squares and parks in the southwest region of Goiás, in the central plateau of Brazil. (a) Public awareness policy for animal feces disposal in a public square. (b) Domestic cat defecating near a children’s recreational area, which lacks physical containment. (c) Fecal material (white arrow) on the ground near the playground.
Pathogens 14 00211 g002
Table 1. Prevalence of contamination in environmental fecal samples by gastrointestinal parasites, distributed across the municipalities of the southwestern microregion of Goiás, located on the central plateau of Brazil.
Table 1. Prevalence of contamination in environmental fecal samples by gastrointestinal parasites, distributed across the municipalities of the southwestern microregion of Goiás, located on the central plateau of Brazil.
MunicipalityInhabitants 1Sampled AreasStool SamplePositive
% (CI)
Aparecida do
Rio Doce
290721212
100 (73.5–100)
Aporé432551913
68.4 (43.5–87.4)
Caiapônia16,50783829
76.3 (59.8–88.6)
Chapadão do Céu12,87041615
93.8 (69.8–99.8)
Castelândia29855179
52.9 (27.8–77.0)
Doverlândia695631914
73.7 (48.8–90.9)
Jataí105,72996250
80.7 (68.6–89.6)
Estância
(district)
111
100 (2.5–100)
Naveslândia
(district)
276
85.7 (42.1–99.6)
Maurilândia10,3045179
52.9 (27.8–77.0)
Mineiros70,081104231
73.8 (57.9–86.1)
Montividiu12,52162319
83.6 (61.2–95.1)
Palestina de Goiás3132286
75.0 (34.9–96.8)
Perolândia296431816
88.9 (65.3–98.6)
Portelândia328021612
75.0 (47.6–92.7)
Rio Verde225,6962513370
52.6 (43.8–61.4)
Santo Antônio da Barra4267395
55.5 (21.2–86.3)
Santa Helena de Goiás38,492124027
67.5 (50.9–81.4)
Santa Rita do
Araguaia
592451412
85.7 (57.2–98.2)
Serranópolis802752521
84 (63.9–95.5)
536,97311753637
770.3 (66.3–74.1)
1 Number of inhabitants based on IBGE data [17]. CI: confidence interval
Table 2. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites identified by municipalities in the southwestern geographical microregion of Goiás, located in the central plateau region of Brazil.
Table 2. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites identified by municipalities in the southwestern geographical microregion of Goiás, located in the central plateau region of Brazil.
City CodeAncylostomatidaeToxocara spp.Trichuris spp.Strongyloides spp.Dipylidium
caninum
Spirometra spp.TaeniidaePlatynosomum fastosumTrematodaGiardia spp.Cystosospora spp.Sarcocystis spp.Entamoeba
spp.
ARD10/12
85.3 (51.6–97.9)
1/12
8.3 (0.2–38.5)
0
-
0
-
9/12
75.0 (42.8–94.5)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/12
8.3 (0.2–38.5)
0
-
0
-
1/12
8.3 (0.2–38.5)
Ap11/19
57.9 (33.5–79.8)
1/19
5.3 (0.1–26.0)
0
-
0
-
8/19
42.1 (20.3–66.5)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
Ca25/38
65.8 (48.7–80.4)
4/38
10.5 (2.9–24.8)
0
-
0
-
5/38
13.2 (4.4–28.14)
0
-
0
-
1/38
2.6 (0.1–13.8)
0
-
2/38
5.3 (0.6–17.8)
3/38
7.9 (1.7–21.4)
0
-
0
-
ChC14/16
87.5 (61.7–98.6)
1/16
6.3 (0.2–30.2)
4/16
25.0 (7.3–52.4)
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/16
6.3 (0.2–30.2)
0
-
0
-
0
-
3/16
18.6 (4.1–45.7)
0
-
1/16
6.3 (0.2–30.2)
Cast7/17
41.2 (18.4–67.1)
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/17
5.9 (0.2–28.7)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/17
5.9 (0.2–28.7)
0
-
0
-
2/17
11.8 (1.5–36.4)
Do14/19
73.7 (48.8–90.9)
1/19
5.3 (0.1–26.0)
0
-
0
-
4/19
21.1 (6.1–45.6)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/19
5.3 (0.1–26.0)
0
-
0
-
0
-
Es0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/1
100 (2.5–100)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
Ja24/62
38.7 (26.6–51.9)
1/62
1.6 (0.1–8.7)
1/62
1.6 (0.1–8.7)
0
-
32/62
51.6 (38.6–64.5)
2/62
3.2 (0.4–11.2)
0
-
1/62
1.6 (0.1–8.7)
0
-
1/62
1.6 (0.1–8.7)
10/62
16.1 (8.0–27.7)
0
-
0
-
Ma7/17
41.2 (18.4–67.1)
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/17
5.9 (0.2–28.7)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/17
5.9 (0.2–28.7)
Mi28/42
66.7 (50.4–80.4)
0
-
0
-
0
-
11/42
26.2 (13.9–42.1)
0
-
0
-
1/42
2.4 (0.1–12.3)
0
-
1/42
2.4 (0.1–12.3)
3/42
7.1 (1.5–19.5)
0
-
1/42
2.4 (0.1–12.3)
Mo14/23
60.9 (38.5–80.3)
1/23
4.4 (0.1–21.9)
0
-
0
-
13/23
56.2 (34.5–76.8)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/23
4.4 (0.1–21.9)
0
-
0
-
Na3/7
42.8 (9.9–81.6)
0
-
0
-
0
-
5/7
71.4 (29.1–96.3)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/7
14.3 (0.4–57.9)
PG4/8
50.0 (15.7–84.3)
2/8
25.0 (3.2–65.1)
0
-
0
-
4/8
50.0 (15.7–84.3)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/8
12.5 (0.3–52.7)
0
-
0
-
Pe15/18
83.3 (58.6–96.4)
3/18
16.7 (3.6–41.4)
1/18
5.6 (0.1–27.3)
1/18
5.6 (0.1–27.3)
9/18
50.0 (26.0–74.0)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
2/18
11.1 (1.4–34.7)
1/18
5.6 (0.1–27.3)
0
-
Po12/16
75.0 (47.6–92.7)
0
-
0
-
0
-
4/16
25.0 (7.3–52.4)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
2/16
12.5 (1.6–38.4)
0
-
1/16
6.3 (0.2–30.2)
RV56/133
42.1 (33.6–51.0)
8/133
6.0 (2.6–11.5)
0
-
0
-
11/133
8.3 (4.2–14.3)
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/133
0.8 (0.0–4.1)
9/133
6.8 (3.1–12.5)
3/133
2.3 (0.5–6.5)
0
-
1/133
0.8 (0.0–4.1)
SAB4/9
44.4 (13.7–78.8)
0
-
1/9
11.1 (0.3–48.3)
0
-
1/9
11.1 (0.3–48.3)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/9
11.1 (0.3–48.3)
0
-
0
-
1/9
11.1 (0.3–48.3)
SHG23/40
57.5 (40.9–73.0)
4/40
10.0 (2.8–23.6)
0
-
0
-
6/40
15.0 (5.7–29.8)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/40
2.5 (0.1–13.2)
0
-
2/40
5.0 (0.6–16.9)
SRA12/14
85.7 (57.2–98.2)
2/14
14.3 (1.8–42.8)
2/14
14.3 (1.8–42.8)
0
-
4/14
28.6 (8.4–58.1)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
1/14
7.1 (0.2–33.9)
0
-
1/14
7.1 (0.2–33.9)
Se20/25
80.0 (59.3–93.2)
4/25
16.0 (4.5–36.1)
0
-
0
-
9/25
36 (18.0–57.5)
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
Total303/536
56.5 (52.3–60.7)
33/536
6.2 (4.4–8.5)
9/536
1.7 (0.9–3.2)
1/536
0.2 (0–1.1)
138/536
25.8 (22.2–29.6)
2/536
0.4 (0.1–1.4)
1/536
0.2 (0–1.1)
3/536
0.6 (0.2–1.6)
1/536
0.2 (0–1.1)
17/536
3.2 (2.0–5.0)
30/536
5.6 (4.0–7.9)
1/536
0.2 (0–1.1)
13/536
2.4 (1.4–4.1)
ARD: Aparecida do Rio Doce; Ap: Aporé; Ca: Caiapônia; ChC: Chapadão do Céu; Cast: Castelândia; Do: Doverlândia; Es: Estância; Ja: Jataí; Ma: Maurilândia; Mi: Mineiros; Mo: Montividiu; Na: Naveslândia; PG: Palestina de Goiás; Pe: Perolândia; Po: Portelândia; RV: Rio Verde; SAB: Santo Antônio da Barra; SHG: Santa Helena de Goiás; SRA: Santa Rita do Araguaia; Se: Serranópolis.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martins, A.J.d.A.; Rocha, A.C.d.S.; Assis-Silva, Z.M.d.; Maia, G.O.; Alves-Ribeiro, B.S.; Duarte, R.B.; Moraes, I.d.S.; Urzedo, N.F.d.; Fernandes-Silva, L.; Gomes, A.P.C.; et al. Risk of Environmental Contamination by Gastrointestinal Parasites in Public Areas of the Central Plateau Microregion of Brazil: A Public Health Concern. Pathogens 2025, 14, 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14030211

AMA Style

Martins AJdA, Rocha ACdS, Assis-Silva ZMd, Maia GO, Alves-Ribeiro BS, Duarte RB, Moraes IdS, Urzedo NFd, Fernandes-Silva L, Gomes APC, et al. Risk of Environmental Contamination by Gastrointestinal Parasites in Public Areas of the Central Plateau Microregion of Brazil: A Public Health Concern. Pathogens. 2025; 14(3):211. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14030211

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martins, Ana Julia de Almeida, Alice Caroline da Silva Rocha, Zara Mariana de Assis-Silva, Guilherme Oliveira Maia, Bruna Samara Alves-Ribeiro, Raiany Borges Duarte, Iago de Sá Moraes, Nicoly Ferreira de Urzedo, Lizandra Fernandes-Silva, Ana Paula Carvalho Gomes, and et al. 2025. "Risk of Environmental Contamination by Gastrointestinal Parasites in Public Areas of the Central Plateau Microregion of Brazil: A Public Health Concern" Pathogens 14, no. 3: 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14030211

APA Style

Martins, A. J. d. A., Rocha, A. C. d. S., Assis-Silva, Z. M. d., Maia, G. O., Alves-Ribeiro, B. S., Duarte, R. B., Moraes, I. d. S., Urzedo, N. F. d., Fernandes-Silva, L., Gomes, A. P. C., Felizarda, S. M., Oliveira, M. P., Saturnino, K. C., Rezende, H. H. A., Rodrigues, R. M., Ramos, D. G. d. S., & Braga, Í. A. (2025). Risk of Environmental Contamination by Gastrointestinal Parasites in Public Areas of the Central Plateau Microregion of Brazil: A Public Health Concern. Pathogens, 14(3), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14030211

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop