Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya

Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133" }, "headline": "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo...", "datePublished": "2022-10-04T15:22:23", "dateModified": "2025-11-13T15:43:54", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jared Ombuya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kennedy Gachoka" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kagendo Dorothy" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Naomi Mutea" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Antimicrobial drug resistance is of great concern today. Infections by the antimicrobial resistant strains of Escherichia coli, including enteropathogenic as well as enterotoxigenic strains have been reported as a major cause of deaths, especially among young children in low- and middle-income countries. This has been augmented by antimicrobial misuse, over the counter availability and poor sanitation especially in low income areas. This study aimed at characterizing antimicrobial resistant strains of Escherichia coli isolated from sanitation environments of the Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on 61 samples from soil, water and drains swabs. These were tested against five antimicrobial drugs by the Kirby disk diffusion method. Results A total of 42 (69%) of the samples had Escherichia coli.These recorded antimicrobial drug susceptibility as follows: Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively. cefotaxime and cefoxitin showed least sensitivity at 14 (33.33%) and 13 (30.95%) respectively. In intermediate imepenem and ciprofloxacin were the highest with 12 (28.57%) followed by cefotaxime 10 (23.81%). The least intermediate was observed in ceftazidime and cefoxitin both at 7 (16.67%). The highest resistance was observed in cefoxitin 22 (52.38%), followed by cefotaxime at 18 (42.86%). Ciprofloxacin, imepenem and ceftazidime had the lowest resistance 4 (9.52%), 5 (11.91%) and 7 (16.67%) respectively. The p-value <0.05 was considered significant to the study. Conclusions This study showed that Escherichia coli isolated from Majengo is pathogenic and resistant to antibiotics. Detection of Escherichia coli poses a great risk in the spread of resistant strains in human. Proper sanitation and hygiene awareness practices should be provided through education to the residents of this area. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4", "name": "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated..." } } ] } Home Browse Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Ombuya J, Gachoka K, Dorothy K and Mutea N. Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] Jared Ombuya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6353-2149 1 , Kennedy Gachoka 2 , Kagendo Dorothy 3 , Naomi Mutea 4 Jared Ombuya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6353-2149 1 , Kennedy Gachoka 2 , Kagendo Dorothy 3 , Naomi Mutea 4 PUBLISHED 13 Nov 2025 Author details Author details 1 Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 2 School of Applied Sciences, Meru University of Science & Technology, Meru, Kenya 3 School of Health Sciences, Meru University of Science & Technology, Meru, Kenya 4 School of Nursing, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya Jared Ombuya Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Kennedy Gachoka Roles: Supervision Kagendo Dorothy Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation Naomi Mutea Roles: Supervision OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Pathogens gateway. This article is included in the Antimicrobial Resistance collection. Abstract Background Antimicrobial drug resistance is of great concern today. Infections by the antimicrobial resistant strains of Escherichia coli , including enteropathogenic as well as enterotoxigenic strains have been reported as a major cause of deaths, especially among young children in low- and middle-income countries. This has been augmented by antimicrobial misuse, over the counter availability and poor sanitation especially in low income areas. This study aimed at characterizing antimicrobial resistant strains of Escherichia coli isolated from sanitation environments of the Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on 61 samples from soil, water and drains swabs. These were tested against five antimicrobial drugs by the Kirby disk diffusion method. Results A total of 42 (69%) of the samples had Escherichia coli. These recorded antimicrobial drug susceptibility as follows: Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively. cefotaxime and cefoxitin showed least sensitivity at 14 (33.33%) and 13 (30.95%) respectively. In intermediate imepenem and ciprofloxacin were the highest with 12 (28.57%) followed by cefotaxime 10 (23.81%). The least intermediate was observed in ceftazidime and cefoxitin both at 7 (16.67%). The highest resistance was observed in cefoxitin 22 (52.38%), followed by cefotaxime at 18 (42.86%). Ciprofloxacin, imepenem and ceftazidime had the lowest resistance 4 (9.52%), 5 (11.91%) and 7 (16.67%) respectively. The p-value <0.05 was considered significant to the study. Conclusions This study showed that Escherichia coli isolated from Majengo is pathogenic and resistant to antibiotics. Detection of Escherichia coli poses a great risk in the spread of resistant strains in human. Proper sanitation and hygiene awareness practices should be provided through education to the residents of this area. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords E. coli, Susceptibility Testing, Antimicrobial Resistance, Multidrug Resistance, Ciprofloxacin, Ceftazidime, Cefotaxime, Imepenem, Cefoxitin Corresponding Author(s) Jared Ombuya ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Jared Ombuya Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Ombuya J et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Ombuya J, Gachoka K, Dorothy K and Mutea N. Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.4 ) First published: 04 Oct 2022, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.1 ) Latest published: 13 Nov 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.4 ) Revised Amendments from Version 3 Extended the conclusion. Defined the sample size. Edited Table 6 caption. Extended the conclusion. Defined the sample size. Edited Table 6 caption. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Eman S. Ibrahim See the authors' detailed response to the review by Abdennaceur Hassen READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Infectious organisms are currently the major cause of diseases worldwide. A number of newly recognized pathogens and strains are now emerging. These organisms have resulted in high morbidity and mortality globally. 1 The emergence of these pathogens has been attributed to microbial evolution, high mutations as the organisms try surviving in different environments as well as creation of new environments. This microbial evolution and high mutations has resulted to drug resistance, especially due to deposition of drug residues released in different environments, and more especially in areas with poor drainages and poor sanitation systems. As a result, there has evolved a need for surveillance and monitoring systems with emphasis on sanitation and water management. This will help curve the spread of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Human population growth currently has faced great challenges in accessing proper quality and quantity water resources. This has led to an increase in the number of water borne infectious diseases recently. 2 An estimated 30% of the bacterial population has been reported to be emerging because of wastewater, agricultural practices, and poor sanitation systems. Water management could act as a barrier to prevent the spread of pathogens. Prevention of pathogens could reduce environmental contamination, antibiotic misuse and eventually mutation of microorganisms. In different environmental set ups, studies have indicated increased multidrug resistance strains which has led to increased mortality and morbidity resulting from exposure to infection causing organisms. Improved sanitation facilities is one of the most important interventions needed in order to stop the spread of resistant bacteria. 3 A study on typhoid among young children, 4 stressed the need for careful monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in a view to prevent increase of resistance strains and resultant infections to vulnerable communities. Diarrheagenic E. coli has demonstrated a significant resistance to beta lactams antibiotics that are commonly prescribed, 5 with contributing factors to diarrhea cases attributed to poor quality of foods, poor water systems, lack of proper hygiene often due to lack of water and poor sanitation. Studies have shown that human and animal waste are the main sources of contamination on the environment that hosts strains that are antimicrobial resistance. 6 The study indicated that contamination resulted in formation of biofilms that supported bacterial resistance. Methods Ethical considerations Approval to carry out the study was done by Meru University of Science and Technology MIRERC (Meru University Institutional Research and Ethics Review Committee). Approval Ref NO: MU/1/39/28 VOL.2(31). Date 17 th February 2022. Study area The study was conducted in the Majengo area, an informal settlement in Meru County within the Eastern region of Kenya. As with other slum areas, Majengo has congested households with poor sanitation and limited access to safe toilet facilities. It is located at Imenti North sub-county and Ntima west ward. River Kathita passes along the slum. Study design and population The study employed a cross-sectional study design with an aspect of laboratory analysis. Environmental samples were collected from water collection points, soils near latrines, and open drains in the Majengo area. Samples that were collected included water, soils, and swabs of open drains. The samples were then transported to the laboratory for analysis. The study did not involve households or interactions with residents of the Majengo area. Sampling procedure To identify sites for sample collection, the study utilized a stratified sampling scheme, where the Majengo area was stratified by its constituent villages using available maps. In each village, areas of sampling were randomly selected based on availability of the water collection points, soils near latrines, and open drains. The number of sampled areas or type of samples in each village was dependent on accessibility and spatial/temporal distribution of the sample types. The sampled areas were marked using Google map to pin sample collection points. Figure 1 shows sampled areas in the Majengo slum. The area was divided into two strata A and B as shown on the map. Figure 1. Shows a map of the sampled areas in the Majengo slum. Maps data ©2022: Google, ©2022 CNES/Airbus, Maxar Technologies. Sample size determination To determine the required sample size, the following formula was used at a 95% confidence interval. 7 n = z − score 2 × StdDev × 1 − StdDev marginal error 2 n = 1.96 2 × 0.2 1 − 0.2 0.05 × 0.05 Sample size = 61 samples Where; n = sample size Z2 = Test power for level of confidence (95%) p = expected proportion (0.2) a prevalence. 8 e = precision Sample processing A 500 ml river water sample was collected into 500 ml sterile bottles by laying the bottle in water facing upstream. Tap water was collected into sterile 500 ml bottles. To do this, the individual tap was sterilized using a flamed alcohol cotton swab, a little water was allowed to flow, before getting collected into the sterile sample bottle. Approximately 10 g of soil samples were collected near toilets and dumping areas using a sterile spoon. In the swab collection, the cover was first untwisted to remove the swab and the sample collection was done by moving the swab in a clockwise circular motion. The swab was then returned aseptically into the vial containing transport media. It was labelled and packed in a cooler box containing an ice pack for transportation to the laboratory for analysis. Samples preparation prior to the inoculation Soil sample A sample of soil weighing 1g was dissolved in sterile distilled water in a 250 ml conical flask. 9 A serial dilution was performed up to 10 5 for E. coli all dilutions were cultured into MacConkey agar (oxoid CM007) and incubated (Biobase) China at 37°C for 24 hours using microbiological standards of culturing. After this duration pink colonies of target organisms were sub cultured in Tryptone Bile Glucuronide (TBX) CM 0964 (Techno Pharmchem, India) to detect E. coli. Confirmation of E. coli was done on indole test. Drain swabs In the laboratory, drain swabs samples were cultured in MacConkey agar (Oxoid CM007) to isolate E. coli. The media was incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. After 24 hours’ growth pink colonies of E. coli in MacConkey agar (Oxoid CM007) were sub cultured in TBX to detect E. coli. Growth of green colonies was an indicator for the presence of E. coli. Water analysis using most probable number method The most probable number method was used to analyze water samples using MacConkey broth (Oxoid CM0505CM 0505) UK. Each bottle with sample was appropriately labelled. The water was mixed thoroughly by inverting the bottle several times. The cap of the bottle was removed and the mouth of the bottle flamed. The water samples were then inoculated by arranging the bottles in an incubator independently inside the incubator grill. 10 After inoculation the bottles were incubated at 44°C for 24 hours and the samples were examined by observing the color change and gas formation. Table 1 shows water analysis set for untreated and treated water samples. Table 1. Water analysis set for untreated and treated water samples. Sample type No. of bottles Ml of broth Strength of broth Untreated water 1 50 Double 5 10 Double 5 5 Single Treated water 1 50 Double 5 10 Double Microbiological identification of E. coli from the samples In the laboratory, samples were cultured in MacConkey agar to isolate E. coli. The cultures were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. After 24 hours’ growth of target organisms in MacConkey agar were sub cultured in TBX to detect E. coli. Growth of green colonies was an indicator for the presence of E. coli. Biochemical identification of E. coli using Tryptone water Isolates were subjected to biochemical identification using the indole test for E. coli. The test organism was inoculated in a bijou bottle containing 3 ml Tryptone water (Oxoid CM0087) UK and incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The test for indole was done by adding one drop of Kovac’s reagent (Himedia) and the formation of a red ring within 10 minutes indicated presence of E. coli. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was done using Mueller-Hinton Agar. Before inoculation of the organism to the Mueller-Hinton (CMO337 Oxoid) UK, single colonies were used to make 0.5 ml McFarland standard. 11 , 12 Colony suspension was first prepared by picking single colonies and suspending them in a vial containing 1ml normal saline. The suspension was compared with McFarland’s standard in order to obtain the required concentration of the isolate. Using a sterile cotton swab, the isolate was picked and spread evenly on Mueller-Hinton agar. Once all the Mueller-Hinton agar was completely inoculated by suspension, antimicrobial discs were inserted on the swabbed Mueller-Hinton agar. 13 The discs were well spaced to prevent them from overlapping. They were pressed on the media to ensure complete contact. They were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C. After 24 hours of incubation, the susceptibility and resistance was determined by measuring the diameter of the zone of inhibition using Vernier Calipers. The measurement was recorded in millimeters. This enabled classification of isolates of E. coli as either sensitive, intermediate, or resistant. 12 , 14 ATCC 25922 E. coli was used as a control organism during the study. The microbial agents used were as follows in their corresponding concentrations; imepenem (10 μg); ceftazidime (30 μg); cefotaxime (30 μg); cefoxitin (30 μg) and ciprofloxacin (5 μg). Data analysis Laboratory data was entered into Microsoft Excel v 2010 and analyzed using SPSS version 26.0. Descriptive analysis was done using Microsoft Excel. The analysis included, frequencies and graphs. Data was compared between each study strata and between each sample type using Kruskal-Wallis tests, between the two drugs using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and findings were presented as figures tables and graphs. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered significant between comparison in susceptibility and resistance between the strata A and B. Results Antimicrobial susceptibility from both strata A total of 42 isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility in both strata. Out of these antimicrobials, 5 (50.48%) were susceptible, 5 (22.86%) were intermediate and 5 (26.67%) were resistant. Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively. cefotaxime and cefoxitin showed least sensitivity at 14 (33.33%) and 13 (30.95%) respectively. In intermediate imepenem and ciprofloxacin were the highest with 12 (28.57%) followed by cefotaxime 10 (23.81%). The least intermediate was observed in ceftazidime and cefoxitin both at 7 (16.67%). The highest resistance was observed in cefoxitin 22 (52.38%), followed by cefotaxime at 18 (42.86%). ciprofloxacin, imepenem and ceftazidime had the lowest resistance 4 (9.52%), 5 (11.91%) and 7 (16.67%) respectively. Figure 2 shows a bar plot of the percentages of susceptibility patterns of different drugs under classes of response to E. coli. Figure 2. Shows a bar plot of the percentages of susceptibility patterns of different drugs under classes of response to E. coli in both strata. IMP-imipenem; CAZ-ceftazidime; CXT-cefoxitin; CTX-cefotaxime; CIP-ciprofloxacin. Antimicrobial susceptibility from drain swabs A total of 16 isolates from drain swabs were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. Out of these antimicrobials, 5 (61.25%) were susceptible to the microbial, 5 (23.75%) were intermediate and 5 (15%) were resistant. The highest resistance was shown to be cefotaxime 6 (33.34%), followed by cefoxitin at 4 (23.34%), while imipenem and ceftazidime were the least resistant at 2 (10%) respectively. ciprofloxacin was 0% resistant to the isolates tested. Table 2 shows antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from drain swabs in both strata. Out of the five drugs ceftazidime showed the highest susceptibility at 13 (85%) while imipenem followed at 13 (81.67%) respectively. ciprofloxacin was the highest in intermediate at 8 (46.67%) while imipenem and cefoxitin were the least intermediate at 2 (13.34%). Figure 3 shows antimicrobial susceptibility pattern from drain swabs. Table 2. Antimicrobial susceptibility frequencies from drain swabs in both strata. Antimicrobial Sensitive Intermediate Resistant Imipenem 13(81.67%) 2(13.34%) 1(10%) Ceftazidime 13(85%) 2(20%) 1(10%) Cefoxitin 10(63.34%) 2(13.34%) 4(23.34%) Cefotaxime 5(35%) 5(31.67%) 6(33.34%) Ciprofloxacin 8(53.33%) 8(46.67%) 0(0.00%) Figure 3. Shows antimicrobial susceptibility pattern from drain swabs in both the strata. IMP-imipenem; CAZ-ceftazidime; CXT-cefoxitin; CTX-cefotaxime; CIP-ciprofloxacin. Antimicrobial susceptibility from soil isolates from both strata A total of 23 samples of soil were tested for antimicrobial sensitivity using diffusion disc method of the five antimicrobials of which imepenem resistant were 4 (17.39%), 8 (34.78%) intermediate while 11 (48.83%) susceptible. Out of the five antimicrobials used in this study in ceftazidime resistant were 6 (26.09%), intermediate 5 (21.74%), susceptibility 12 (52.17%), cefoxitin resistant were 15 (65.22%), intermediate 5 (21.71%), susceptible 3 (13.04%), cefotaxime resistant were 9 (9.13%), intermediate 5 (21.74%), susceptible 9 (39.13%) and ciprofloxacin resistant were 4 (17.39%), intermediate 4 (17.39%), susceptible 15 (65. 22%). Table 3 shows E. coli antimicrobials susceptibility drug patterns from soil samples in both strata. In both strata ciprofloxacin showed the highest susceptibility at 65.22%, followed by ceftazidime at 52.17%, while cefoxitin showed the least susceptibility . Imepenem showed the highest intermediate of all the drugs. Cefoxitin showed the highest resistance. Figure 4 shows the comparison in susceptibility patterns of the samples. Table 3. E. coli antimicrobials susceptibility drug patterns from soil samples in both strata. Sensitive Intermediate Resistant Total Sensitive Intermediate Resistant Strata 1 Imipenem 7 2 0 9 77.78% 22.22% 0.00% Ceftazidime 5 3 1 9 55.56% 33.33% 11.11% Ceroxitin 2 1 6 9 22.22% 11.11% 66.67% Cefotaxime 5 1 3 9 55.56% 11.11% 33.33% Ciprofloxacin 6 2 1 9 66.67% 22.22% 11.11% Strata 2 Imipenem 4 6 4 14 28.57% 42.86% 28.57% Ceftazidime 7 2 5 14 50.00% 14.29% 35.71% Ceroxitin 1 4 9 14 7.14% 28.57% 64.29% Cefotaxime 4 4 6 14 28.57% 28.57% 42.86% Ciprofloxacin 9 2 3 14 64.29% 14.29% 21.43% Figure 4. Shows the comparison in susceptibility patterns of the soil samples in both strata. IMP-imipenem; CAZ-ceftazidime; CXT-cefoxitin; CTX-cefotaxime; CIP-ciprofloxacin. In the first strata, imepenem at 9 (77.78%) showed the highest susceptibility, followed by ciprofloxacin at 6 (66.67%) and cefoxitin was the least sensitive at 22.22%. Ceftazidime showed the highest intermediate at 33.33% while cefoxitin and cefotaxime were least intermediate. Cefoxitin showed the highest resistance while imepenem showed no resistant. In strata two ciprofloxacin 64.29% showed the highest susceptibility, followed by ceftazidime 50%. Cefoxitin showed highest resistance at 64.29%, followed by cefotaxime at 42.86%. Imepenem showed the highest intermediate of all the drugs. Antimicrobial susceptibility for water samples Out of the three water samples analyzed it was observed that, ceftazidime and Ciprofloxacin showed 100% sensitivity while imipenem showed the least sensitivity Figure 5 shows the comparisons in % between the drugs. The highest resistance was observed in both cefoxitin and cefotaxime at 100%. Imipenem was the most intermediate at 66.67%. Table 4 shows E. coli antimicrobials susceptibility drug patterns from water samples from strata 1 and 2. Figure 5. Shows the comparisons in percentages between the drugs for water samples. IMP-imipenem; CAZ-ceftazidime; CXT-cefoxitin; CTX-cefotaxime; CIP-ciprofloxacin. Table 4. E. coli antimicrobials susceptibility of water samples. Water Sensitive Intermediate Resistant Total Sensitive Intermediate Resistant Imipenem 1 2 0 3 33% 66.67% 0% Ceftazidime 3 0 0 3 100% 0% 0% Cefoxitin 0 0 3 3 0% 0% 100% Cefotaxime 0 0 3 3 0% 0% 100% Ciprofloxacin 3 0 0 3 100% 0% 0 Statistical comparison of resistance of the drugs using Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test The resistance from this study was statistically significant since the p value=0.0005275354994284686 and the statistic=19.87938408896494. The p-value is less than 0.05, and so we reject the null hypothesis. This means that the resistance is not the same across the different drugs. To know which drug is more resistant, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used. This study found that cefoxitin and cefotaxime are statistically significant with a p-value 0.0156 which means they have highest resistance among the rest of the drugs. Table 5 shows p-values between compared drugs. Table 5. p-values between compared drugs. p-value Ceftazidime Cefoxitin Cefotaxime Ciprofloxacin Imipenem 0.1088 0.0156 0.0156 0.7150 Ceftazidime 0.0156 0.0156 0.0679 Cefoxitin 0.2249 0.0156 Cefotaxime 0.0156 Table 6. Mean zones of inhibition (mm) and their standard errors for E. coli O157 isolates tested against selected antimicrobial agents. Drug Mean±SE Imipenem 23.809524±5.460448 a Ceftazidime 19.440476±9.395252 a Cefoxitin 9.333333±9.030211 b Cefotaxime 23.452381±4.695007 b Ciprofloxacin 21.547619±7.012888 a Imipenem, ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin are not significant to this study since the p value is greater than p>0.05. This p-value correlates to what was found in a study conducted by Ref. 15 who recorded a p-value of 0.36 towards E. coli. Statistical analysis summary using plot box. Figure 6 shows a box plot showing summary of descriptive statistics of the means and standard errors of the antimicrobials. Figure 6. Shows a box plot showing a summary of descriptive statistics of the means and standard errors of the individual drugs used. Statistical comparison of sensitivity of the drugs using Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test Sensitivity from this study was significant to the study since the p value=0.01171770477419787 between the strata. This means that the sensitivity was not the same across the different drugs. To know which drug is more sensitive, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was performed. It was observed that, ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime and imipenem were the most sensitive drug with a p-value>0.05. Table 7 shows the p-values of the antimicrobials in the study. Table 7. p-values of the antimicrobials. p-value Ceftazidime Cefoxitin Cefotaxime Ciprofloxcin Imipenem 0.4630 0.0156 0.0277 0.9375 Ceftazidime 0.0156 0.0260 0.3454 Cefoxitin 0.9165 0.1158 Cefotaxime 0.0156 Discussion Antimicrobial resistance patterns of E. coli from the study area This study reported a range of resistance to E. coli isolates from all the samples analyzed. Therefore, there is high chance that E. coli isolated from this study area emerges from the surrounding poor unhygienic conditions and inadequate sanitation facilities from the residents. These findings agree with a study on contamination of street food in Burkina Faso that enteric organisms emerge from cross contamination. 16 A study conducted on antimicrobial profile in Juja and Kibera found cefotaxime, ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin recorded a greater than 30% of antimicrobial resistance 17 this result is much lower than the one reported in the current study that recorded 25% increase. A study conducted by Ref. 18 observed that this increase in resistance is due to use in antibiotics in the treatment of diseases associated with poor unhygienic conditions. This study found the highest resistance on soil where it was it was noted that cefoxitin 65.22% an indication that soil was contaminated in this area. These findings correlate with study on urban informal settlement on antimicrobial resistance on the environment. It was noted from this study that less attention is being given on this contamination and pose a great risk to antimicrobial resistance. 19 Another study noted that soil is a hotspot carrier of resistant genes. 20 The current study recorded 34% towards cefotaxime, imepenem10% and zero resistance to Ciprofloxacin. In a similar study, 21 recorded 0% resistance to Ciprofloxacin and 1.68% to imipenem and 8.94% cefotaxime. This finding on cefotaxime and imepenem is much lower than the ones from the current study. However, both studies recorded 0% to ciprofloxacin. According to Ref. 22 multidrug resistance to E. coli was noted on cefotaxime at 79.7% resistance. A related study 23 recorded 93% resistance to E. coli. The current study recorded a lower figure of 42.86% resistance to cefotaxime. The current study showed the least resistance towards ceftazidime (16.67%) which is much lower that the resistance obtained from Ref. 24 100%. Antimicrobial resistance from water samples The current study showed 100% resistance to water samples analyzed during the study. This resistance is a likely indication that there is high contamination of wastewater that is in return used for home use by the residents. The current study only focused on river water samples passing through the study area and not water samples from the source area. This calls for a study in order to determine if there is contamination. The findings from the current study was higher by 20% from a related study conducted by Ref. 25 on antidrug resistance on Indian rivers. A study done by Ref. 26 while investigating resistance from water found that ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin had almost the same resistance; 1.7% and 1.8% respectively. These findings are higher than the current study which recorded 0% resistance on the drugs. According to Ref. 27 , E. coli in wastewater plants was 60% resistant towards ciprofloxacin, which was higher than the current study at 0% resistance. Conclusion This study confirmed the presence of Escherichia coli O157 in the sanitation environments of Majengo slum, Meru County, Kenya, with 23.81% of the analyzed samples testing positive. The detection of this pathogenic strain in latrine surfaces and drainage areas indicates significant fecal contamination and highlights the potential health risk to residents of the informal settlement. The observed antimicrobial resistance among the isolates further raises serious public health concerns, as it may lead to treatment failures, prolonged illness, and increased mortality rates among infected individuals. The situation is particularly alarming in informal settlements where access to quality healthcare and sanitation facilities is limited, thereby facilitating the spread of resistant pathogens. These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, improved hygiene and sanitation infrastructure, and public education on rational antibiotic use. Recommendations Proper sanitation and hygiene awareness practices should be provided through education to the residents of this area. In the future, molecular methods should be used to look in more detail at the resistance genotype of the isolate from the study. Author’s contribution JO: Developed the concept, wrote the project proposal, collected the research data, analyzed the data, and wrote the thesis. KG: Corrected the concept, provided necessary guidance, and corrections at the proposal writing, data analysis, and thesis writing. NM: Corrected the concept, provided necessary guidance, and corrections at the proposal writing, data analysis, and thesis writing Data availability Underlying data Figshare: EVALUATION OF ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF ESCHERICHIA COLI ISOLATED FROM CONTAMINATED AREAS OF MAJENGO SLUM IN MERU COUNTY, KENYA. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare. 20325345.v1 . 28 This project contains the following underlying data: • my data.xlsx (The data from this study represents data using measures of central tendency and the findings in percentages and bar graphs and statistical analysis involved using Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon from SPSS software.) Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgements Many thanks to almighty God for enabling me throughout in doing this work. I thank everyone who supported me throughout this journey. In a special way I would like to thank my supervisors Dr. Kennedy Gachoka and Dr. Naomi K. Mutea for believing in me and guidance he has given me throughout this journey of research further with their authority allowed me to publish this work. I appreciate my mentor Dorothy Kagendo for guiding me in my work till the end. I am very grateful to Sanitation Research Institute Director Dr Joy Riungu for the support in terms of laboratory reagents for carrying out the practical research. I also offer my appreciations to chairman school of biological sciences for acceptance to use the biological laboratory in carrying out my study. Many sincere appreciations to Mr. Sigido Mbogoh laboratory Technician Biological lab for laboratory for providing me with equipment and space to carry out the sample processing in the laboratory. Lastly I thank Mr Anampiu Kirimi for the guidance in carry out microbiology procedures during the study. References 1. Health P: Future Emerging Issues in waterborne diseases and microbial agents.2012; 34–36. 2. Pedley S, Pond K: Emerging issues in water and infectious disease. World Health Organization; 2003. 3. ReACT: Addressing the antibiotic resistance threat-the role of water, sanitation and hygiene.2018; 1–4. 4. Town G, Mohsin S, Aziz Q, et al. : Original article Burden of antibiotic resistance among children with typhoid in.2022; 3 (1): 81–91. 5. Iseghohi MG, FA K: Escherichia Coli Encoding Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases Isolated from Diarrheic Patients in Minna, Nigeria. Int. J. Biotechnol. 2021; 10 (2): 52–68. 6. Haenni M, Dagot C, Chesneau O, et al. : Environmental contamination in a high-income country (France) by antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and antibiotic resistance genes: Status and possible causes. Environ. Int. 2022; 159 (December 2021): 107047. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Cochran WG: Cochran_1977_Sampling_Techniques__Third_Edition.pdf.1977; p. 448. 8. Pourhoseingholi MA, Vahedi M, Rahimzadeh M: Sample size calculation in medical studies. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed Bench. 2013; 6 (1): 14–17. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text 9. Amoafo OY, Malekar V, Jones E, et al. : Antibiotic resistance and phylogenetic profiling of Escherichia coli from dairy farm soils; organic versus conventional systems. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2022; 3 (July 2021): 100088. 10. Yeboah SIIK, Antwi-Agyei P, Domfeh MK: Drinking water quality and health risk assessment of intake and point-of-use water sources in Tano North Municipality, Ghana. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2022; 12 (2): 157–167. Publisher Full Text 11. Ghabban H, Alnomasy SF, Almohammed H, et al. : Antibacterial, Cytotoxic, and Cellular Mechanisms of Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles against Some Cariogenic Bacteria (Streptococcus mutans and Actinomyces viscosus). J. Nanomater. 2022; 2022 : 1–8. Publisher Full Text 12. Zelalem A, Abegaz K, Kebede A, et al. : Investigation on Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, and coliforms in beef from Ethiopian abattoirs: A potential risk of meat safety. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022 (December 2021): 1–11. 13. monicah cheesbrough: monicah cheesbrough part 2.2006; 137–140 p. 14. Kahlmeter G, Giske CG, Kirn TJ, et al. : Point-counterpoint: Differences between the European Committee on Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and Clinical and Laboratory standards institute recommendations for reporting antimicrobial susceptibility results. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019; 57 (9). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Maina J: Multiple-drug resistances gram-negative bacterial strains recoverable from food and environmental samples in kibera informal settlements Master of Science (Medical Microbiology) Jomo Kenyatta University of.2020. 16. Tahri L, Hafiane FZ, Fekhaoui M: Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of the Escherichia coli in the groundwater (Tadla-Morocco). Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2021 May 1; 13 : 100572. Publisher Full Text 17. Maina J, Ndung P, Muigai A, et al. : Antimicrobial Profiles of Selected Gram-Negative Bacteria Recoverable from Sewage and Sludge from Juja and Kibera Informal Settlements of the Larger Nairobi Metropolis.2019; 507–524. 18. Fleece ME, Nshama R, Walongo T, et al. : Longitudinal assessment of antibiotic resistance in fecal Escherichia coli in Tanzanian Children. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2019; 100 (5): 1110–1114. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 19. Iskandar K, Molinier L, Hallit S, et al. : Drivers of antibiotic resistance transmission in low-and middle-income countries from a “one health” perspective—a review. Antibiotics. 2020; 9 (7): 1–23. Publisher Full Text 20. Samreen AI, Malak HA, Abulreesh HH: Environmental antimicrobial resistance and its drivers: a potential threat to public health. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021; 27 : 101–111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Divyashree M, Vijaya Kumar D, Ballamoole KK, et al. : Occurrence of antibiotic resistance among Gram negative bacteria isolated from effluents of fish processing plants in and around Mangalore. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2020; 30 (6): 653–660. 22. Sonola VS, Katakweba AS, Misinzo G, et al. : Occurrence of Multi-Drug-Resistant Escherichia coli in. Antibiotics. 2021; 10 (1137): 1–12. 23. Hope D, Ampaire L, Oyet C, et al. : Antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic aerobic bacteria causing surgical site infections in Mbarara regional referral hospital, Southwestern Uganda. Sci. Rep. 2019; 9 (1): 1–10. 24. Ngene AC, Ohaegbu CG, Awom IE, et al. : High prevalence of multidrug resistant enterobacteriaceae isolated from wastewater and soil in Jos Metropolis, Plateau State, Nigeria.2021; 13 (December): 22–29. 25. Bilal H, Khan MN, Rehman T, et al. : Antibiotic resistance in Pakistan: a systematic review of past decade. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021; 21 (1): 1–19. 26. Mukami SN: phenotypic and molecular characterization of pathotypes, and antimicrobial resistance profiles of escherichia coli from food, water and livestock in selected informal settlements in nairobi.2021. 27. Praveenkumarreddy Y, Akiba M, Guruge KS, et al. : Occurrence of antimicrobial-resistant escherichia coli in sewage treatment plants of south India. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2020; 10 (1): 48–55. 28. Ombuya J, Kennedy G, Naomi M: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of majengo slum in meru county, kenya. figshare. [Dataset]. 2022. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 04 Oct 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 2 School of Applied Sciences, Meru University of Science & Technology, Meru, Kenya 3 School of Health Sciences, Meru University of Science & Technology, Meru, Kenya 4 School of Nursing, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya Jared Ombuya Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Kennedy Gachoka Roles: Supervision Kagendo Dorothy Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation Naomi Mutea Roles: Supervision Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (4) version 4 Revised Published: 13 Nov 2025, 11:1133 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.4 version 3 Revised Published: 12 Apr 2023, 11:1133 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.3 version 2 Revised Published: 26 Jan 2023, 11:1133 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.2 version 1 Published: 04 Oct 2022, 11:1133 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.1 Copyright © 2025 Ombuya J et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Ombuya J, Gachoka K, Dorothy K and Mutea N. Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124121.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 13 Nov 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kibret M. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438452 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-438452 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Mulugeta Kibret , Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438452 1. Summary This study investigates the presence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli i n environmental samples collected from the Majengo informal settlement in Meru County, Kenya. A total of 61 samples were collected and analyzed using standard microbiological ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. Summary This study investigates the presence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli i n environmental samples collected from the Majengo informal settlement in Meru County, Kenya. A total of 61 samples were collected and analyzed using standard microbiological techniques, along with Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion testing against five antibiotics: imipenem, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, and ciprofloxacin. The results reveal a high prevalence of E. coli in the environmental samples, with significant resistance observed against cefoxitin and cefotaxime. In contrast, lower levels of resistance were noted for ciprofloxacin, imipenem, and ceftazidime. Statistical tests were applied to examine the resistance patterns among the antibiotics. The study concludes that inadequate sanitation likely serves as a reservoir for antimicrobial-resistant E. coli, p osing public health risks in informal settlements. It emphasizes the urgent need for improved sanitation, hygiene education, and ongoing surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. 2. Evaluation of specific review questions 2.1 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes, Expanded justification: The manuscript is well-structured, logically organized, and clearly written. The objectives are explicitly stated and aligned with the background. The authors reference a significant amount of recent literature, mostly from the last 5 to 7 years, effectively situating the study within the One Health framework and the context of environmental antimicrobial resistance. The discussion effectively compares the findings with similar studies conducted in Africa and other low- to middle-income settings, which enhances the external relevance of the results. Minor suggestions The introduction could better align with global environmental AMR surveillance frameworks. Some stylistic edits could enhance clarity without impacting scientific accuracy. 2.2 Is the study design appropriate, and is the work technically sound? Answer: Yes Expanded justification: A cross-sectional environmental surveillance design is effective for characterizing antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in high-risk sanitation settings. By sampling across different environmental matrices, the study can capture a variety of exposure pathways. Standard laboratory methods are validated and suitable for assessing phenotypic AMR in resource-limited contexts. Minor limitations The antibiotic panel is limited to five agents, primarily β-lactams. Broader coverage with tetracyclines and aminoglycosides could improve future studies. Molecular characterization of resistance genes was not conducted, but it is recognized as a future research priority. These limitations do not undermine the technical validity of the current work. 2.3 Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Answer: Yes It specifies reagents, incubation conditions, antibiotic concentrations, and analytical software, providing enough detail for independent replication by other researchers in similar settings. 2.4 If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Answer: Yes Expanded justification: The authors appropriately employ non-parametric tests, specifically the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, considering the sample size and data distribution. The statistical results are clearly presented, and interpretations are cautious and consistent with the descriptive findings. Although some analyses, such as antibiotic comparisons, are not crucial for the main conclusions, they are presented transparently and without any misleading interpretations. 2.5 Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Answer: Yes Expanded justification: All data are publicly available on Figshare with documentation and open licensing, ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and allowing for reanalysis by other researchers. 2.6 Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Answer: Yes The conclusions align with the results, focusing on phenotypic resistance and environmental contamination. The authors avoid overgeneralization and frame their findings within the study's limitations. The public health implications related to sanitation, hygiene, and AMR surveillance are reasonable and data-supported. 3. Minor note: Statements regarding pathogenicity are better interpreted in the context of environmental and public health risk rather than clinical virulence; the revised version has improved clarity in this regard. 4. Overall assessment This manuscript offers valuable evidence on environmental antimicrobial resistance in informal settlements and significantly contributes to the One Health AMR literature. The study design, methods, analysis, and conclusions are robust and align well with the objectives. With minor optional refinements, the article meets the standards for scientific rigor and reproducibility for indexing. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: My area of expertise is microbiology and environmental AMR. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kibret M. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438452 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-438452 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Islam KBMS. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438460 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-438460 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025 K.B.M Saiful Islam , Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438460 This study investigates antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Escherichia coli isolated from environmental samples collected in the Majengo slum of Meru County, Kenya. The topic is highly relevant given the global concern over antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in low‑resource urban settings. The ... Continue reading READ ALL This study investigates antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Escherichia coli isolated from environmental samples collected in the Majengo slum of Meru County, Kenya. The topic is highly relevant given the global concern over antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in low‑resource urban settings. The authors employed a cross‑sectional design, collecting 61 environmental samples (soil, water, and drain swabs) and testing 42 confirmed E. coli isolates against five antibiotics using the disc diffusion method. The study addresses an important One Health issue; environmental AMR in informal settlements, and contributes surveillance data from an underserved Kenyan region. Version 4 incorporates several meaningful revisions, including sample size justification using Cochran’s formula, an extended conclusion linking findings to broader public health implications, and improvements to tables and figures. These revisions demonstrate responsiveness to earlier reviewer critiques, particularly regarding statistical misapplications highlighted by Reviewers 2 and 3. Despite these improvements, several issues remain that must be addressed to meet scientific standards: 1. Literature Context The introduction would benefit from deeper engagement with current AMR surveillance frameworks and comparative studies from similar slum environments. Incorporating recent WHO, FAO, and WOAH reports, as well as regional AMR data from East Africa, would strengthen the scientific grounding and contextual relevance. 2. Study Design and Methods Although the sampling strategy is described, the rationale for stratification and site selection requires clearer justification. The antimicrobial panel is appropriate; however, the study lacks molecular confirmation of resistance determinants, which limits interpretation of resistance mechanisms. While ATCC 25922 was used as a control strain, inclusion of additional quality‑control measures would enhance methodological robustness. Minor typographical errors (e.g., “imepenem” instead of “imipenem,” “ceroxitin” instead of “cefoxitin”) should also be corrected. 3. Statistical Analysis The use of Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed‑Rank tests is appropriate for non‑parametric data; however, the statistical reporting is minimal. P‑values are presented without effect sizes, confidence intervals, or justification for test selection. Interpretation of statistical significance should be linked to environmental variables, sample types, and potential confounders. 4. Data Availability and Reproducibility The manuscript does not provide raw data such as zone diameters, isolate‑level susceptibility profiles, or precise sampling coordinates. For full reproducibility, the authors should upload complete datasets and laboratory protocols to a public repository, as required by F1000Research’s open‑data policy. 5. Conclusions The conclusions regarding resistance patterns and public health risks are generally supported by the results. However, the statement that E. coli isolates are “pathogenic” is not substantiated, as no virulence profiling was performed. Recommendations on sanitation and hygiene are appropriate but should be framed within the study’s methodological limitations. Recommendations for Improvement Expand the literature review with current AMR surveillance references and regional comparative studies. Provide clearer justification for sampling design, stratification, and site selection. Include raw data (zone diameters, isolate metadata) and upload full datasets to a public repository. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals alongside p‑values. Clarify study limitations and avoid overgeneralization regarding pathogenicity. This study has the potential to contribute meaningfully to environmental AMR surveillance in informal settlements. Addressing the points above will substantially improve the scientific rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability of the work. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Antimicrobial Resistance, Microbiology, Veterinary Public Health, One Health, Environmental Surveillance, Zoonoses, Food Safety, Veterinary Medicine I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Islam KBMS. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438460 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-438460 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kalu CM. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r439717 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-439717 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Dec 2025 Chimdi Mang Kalu , University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r439717 The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya" presents the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli from soil, water, and drain swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya" presents the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli from soil, water, and drain swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The topic is interesting and relevant as it addresses the current issues of antimicrobial resistance of the bacterium that is known to cause a series of deaths. However, the manuscript needs some revisions as stipulated below: Abstract: Escherichia coli should be written once and subsequently be written as E. coli . In the method section, there was no information on how the 61 samples were obtained in total. Was the sampling done in triplicate or what? Then, in the results section, I recommend that it be rewritten. For example, “Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively.” “Ceftazidime does not show sensitivity; rather, 28 (66.67%) of isolated E. coli showed sensitivity to ceftazidime.” Please consider restructuring this section. Introduction: This section provided general information on infectious diseases without adequate concentration on E. coli and the diseases or deaths caused. There was no linked information on the occurrence of this bacterium in Kenya, making a clear justification of this study difficult. Hence, I recommend that the introduction be completely restructured with clear justification and objectives. Methods: The ethical consideration statement should come at the end. In the sampling procedure, there was no mention of the number of samples collected from soil, water, and swab. Was the sampling done in duplicates or triplicates? What is the justification for using the size determination method? How did you calculate the standard deviation and the Z-score value? “A serial dilution was performed up to 10 5 for E. coli all dilutions were cultured into MacConkey agar (oxoid CM007) and incubated (Biobase) China at 37°C for 24 hours using microbiological standards of culturing.” Consider splitting this sentence into two…….. “Confirmation of E. coli was done on indole test.” Please indicate the expected results of this confirmation test…….. Five antibiotics were used. However, there was no information on the classes of antibiotics to which they belong. This will help to identify the isolates that were multidrug resistant. Results: This section needs to be rewritten. There is no need for intermediate resistance. It is either susceptible or resistant. “Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively.” “Ceftazidime does not show sensitivity; rather, 28 (66.67%) of isolated E. coli showed sensitivity to ceftazidime.” Please consider restructuring this section. Effect this throughout this section………….. “A total of 16 isolates from drain swabs were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. Out of these antimicrobials, 5 (61.25%) were susceptible to the microbial,”…………………..Are you dealing with microbial or specifically E. coli ? Please be specific….. Discussion: The discussion should be strengthened to provide a clear impact of the study in unveiling the antimicrobial resistance of E. coli in Kenya. Conclusion: “This study confirmed the presence of Escherichia coli O157” How did you arrive at this strain? Was there any sequencing of the isolate done to give clear indication of the O157 strain? You can just write…..This study confirmed the presence of Escherichia coli Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Molecular biology, antibiotic resistance, virulence, and water analysis I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kalu CM. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r439717 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-439717 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 12 Apr 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hassen A. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176272 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176272 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Sep 2024 Abdennaceur Hassen , Research Center of Wastewater technologies, Technopark Borj Cedria, Soliman, Tunisia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176272 Main comments As a whole, I find the article very interesting since it discusses a relevant topic, bacterial multidrug resistance, in a developed African country like Kenya, and a specific situation and environment. The study aimed to ... Continue reading READ ALL Main comments As a whole, I find the article very interesting since it discusses a relevant topic, bacterial multidrug resistance, in a developed African country like Kenya, and a specific situation and environment. The study aimed to determine and provide crucial insights characterizing antimicrobial-resistant strains of Escherichia coli isolated from sanitation environments in the Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya. This statement is clear and concise. This subject is of considerable relevance in light of the importance of infections by antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli strains, such as enteropathogenic and enterotoxigenic strains. These strains of Escherichia coli have been reported worldwide as a major cause of death, especially among young children in low- and middle-income countries, like most African countries. This major cause of death has been exacerbated by antimicrobial misuse, over-the-counter availability, and poor sanitation, especially in low-income areas. Additionally, I always recommend adding a graphical abstract to aid in understanding the study. The graphical abstract, sometimes not required and requested by the journal, gives added value. This helps the reader better understand the reality of the work. On the other hand, the quality and presentation of the graphical abstract, in my opinion, is an excellent indicator concerning the research team. This is because it indicates the validity of their work, its seriousness, and its scientific rigor. The paper is relatively short. It will be a relatively short paper. The manuscript is well-written in English and sometimes requires corrections and intervention. It would be helpful if you could provide me with a Doc manuscript so that I can assist the authors. I summarize my main comments about this work: Abstract I find the abstract well-written, expressive, well-structured, and well-extended. I recommend removing Multidrug resistance since it has the same meaning as “antimicrobial resistance”, and adding “E. Isolates" instead of just “E. coli” and “sanitation environments”. These two keywords should be more indicative and precise concerning this investigation. Introduction A clear introduction to a topic that takes less than a page to introduce and explain the subject. It is nicely presented and properly defended which makes the topic and investigation useful. Furthermore, this introduction demonstrated the high relevance of the topic. I recommend some extension of this introduction considering the importance and abundance of the bibliography on this specific theme in the scientific literature. Of nearly all references cited, 27 references were not within the standards recommended by scientific journals of around 40 references; and once there is a small extension in the introduction, the number of references automatically increases a little. These references were almost all very recent since around 85% of the references were from 2021. After the introduction, the main goals of this study are thoroughly introduced, well-cited, and structured. These goals are clearly expressed and written. Materials and methods All methodologies were well documented and described with all necessary monitoring, including microbiological and statistical tests. Although some corrections are needed to confirm the seriousness of the investigation. Regarding the sampling modality, it requires more explanation in terms of text restructuring. Gram staining technique description is not necessary since this technique is well-known and common. Results and discussion Results queues and text citations are useful and consistent. All results are well-cited, clearly explained, and defended. Concerning this defense, I noticed that the authors cited some very recent references beyond 2021 when defending their results. Figures and tables Although the illustrations are clear, clearly captioned, and well-made; however, Table 6 needs additional captions to aid in understanding and signifying the obtained values, ...etc. Conclusion As a conclusion, I think it is too short, so I think it needs some extension. Decision The work is well done, and consistent and deserves publication in a future issue with a correction. I mean English writing mainly. It is perfectly within the journal's scope. Last, and for all the reasons mentioned above, I recommend the indexing of this work with a minor correction. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Économie de l'eau, Hydrologie environnementale, Microbiologie, Antibiorésistance, Écologie environnementale et moléculaire, Écotoxicologie Processus de traitement de l’eau et de Filtration. Certification, normalisation et accréditation. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hassen A. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176272 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176272 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Sep 2024 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 14 Sep 2024 Author Response Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 02 Dec 2024 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 02 Dec 2024 Author Response Will do the correction stated. Regards Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Will do the correction stated. Regards Will do the correction stated. Regards Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 13 Nov 2025 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 13 Nov 2025 Author Response Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Sep 2024 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 14 Sep 2024 Author Response Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 02 Dec 2024 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 02 Dec 2024 Author Response Will do the correction stated. Regards Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Will do the correction stated. Regards Will do the correction stated. Regards Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 13 Nov 2025 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 13 Nov 2025 Author Response Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sobur MA. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176275 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176275 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Jun 2023 Md. Abdus Sobur , Microbiology and Hygiene, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Mymensingh Division, Bangladesh; Poultry Diagnostic Lab, Provita Group, Mymensingh, Mymensingh Division, Bangladesh Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176275 The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya" has presented the prevalence of antibiotic resistance E. coli from soil, water and drains swabs in a poor sanitation area in ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya" has presented the prevalence of antibiotic resistance E. coli from soil, water and drains swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The topic has been chosen by the Authors has importance in One Health view point. However, the study design has some serous faults particularly, in statistical analysis. In addition, the whole manuscript requires major revisions in terms of scientific writing and sentence corrections. Over all the manuscript is not at the stage of indexing. Due to no line number, line wise correction is not possible. I have written the report based in section. Abstract: The Authors can write as E. coli after first use. The result section should be rewritten. The authors have mentioned the sensitive prevalence first, and then intermediate finally, the resistance pattern. They should write the resistance pattern first and then sensitive pattern if they feel sensitive pattern is important. No need to mention the intermediate pattern in abstract. To me, only resistance pattern is enough for abstract section. In conclusion, there is no indication in results and methods of abstract to say E. col as pathogenic and even no clue in the whole manuscript. What is the basis of this finding? Keywords: Why did the Authors use multidrug resistance as keywords when they have not identified multidrug resistance in their study? Introduction: As the background and justification of the study "introduction" section is not well written. The Authors have studied on E. coli in a particular area and they have mentioned the area as "contaminated" in the title. However, they have not indicated any linkage to be the area as contaminated. In addition, they have not described the area, people live there and their occupation which are important for E. coli contamination as well as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) relation. This information would help to formulate the justification of the study. It was mainly to convince the reader why the area is contaminated with AMR E. coli. Unfortunately, the justification of the study is absent here. Furthermore, there is no aim mentioned as well. Methods: Sample size determination: Seems the reference (7) is not correct. On top of that, the Authors have not mentioned the meaning of the values they used in the formula. In addition, as per the equation no. of samples will be 246 not 61. The calculation is correct. Sample processing: How much tap water was collected? The Authors collected 500 ml river water in 500 ml bottle that is not a good practice. The bottle should be larger than the collection amount to prevent contamination. Samples preparation prior to the inoculation: Although the Authors are saying sample preparation prior to inoculation however, they have mentioned the culture procedures here as well. And they have written the microbial techniques separately bellow. No need to write separately as already mentioned. It was best to identify the E. coli by molecular technique. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: Five antibiotics were selected among them, three were cephalosporin, one carbapenem (these four are B-lactams) and one Fluoroquinolones. Therefore, categorically only two types of antibiotics was selected. For this selection, it was best to identify ESBL among the E. coli isolates. Data analysis: Before doing any statistical analysis, maintaining minimum sample number (from population) should be followed otherwise statistical analysis get lower importance. In addition, comparing among antibiotics in this study is not useful as most of the antibiotics fall in the same group. Comparing among group will not be useful as well as one B-lactams have four antibiotics and Fluoroquinolones has only one antibiotics. Therefore, this analysis does not add any value to this study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Antibiotic Resistance, Virulence, Veterinary Microbiology, Food Microbiology, Poultry Health, One Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sobur MA. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176275 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176275 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kuile BHT. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176271 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176271 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Jun 2023 Benno H Ter Kuile , Swammerdam Institute of Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176271 This manuscript describes the level of resistance of Escherichia coli isolated from soil, water and drains swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The data are of interest as information about antimicrobial resistance in such environment is essential for ... Continue reading READ ALL This manuscript describes the level of resistance of Escherichia coli isolated from soil, water and drains swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The data are of interest as information about antimicrobial resistance in such environment is essential for a global OneHealth approach. While the data collection has been performed correctly, the data processing is substandard. A considerable revision of the results section will be needed. The application of statistics is incorrect in many instances, but luckily often not required. I have looked up reference 7 on the sample size, but I could not find the equation the authors use. However, the final sample size (41 E. coli positive samples) is on the low side, but that does not invalidate the study. Tables 5 and 7 and figure 6 are useless, because antibiotics are not experimental groups, so the p-values are meaningless. Throughout the study numbers are mentioned that are either incomprehensible, or don’t add up. In table 2, first two lines, the same numbers do not have the same percentages and they don’t add up to 100. Line 3: if 10 = 63.34%, then 2 cannot be 13.34 and if 2 is 13.34, then 4 cannot be 23.34. This is only one example, but throughout the manuscript numbers are flawed, don’t add up and simply don’t make sense. A sentence like “Out of these antimicrobials, 5 (50.48%) were susceptible, 5 (22.86%) were intermediate and 5 (26.67%) were resistant.” is impossible to interpret. Antimicrobials are not susceptible, intermediate or resistant; microbes are or are not. One final example: throughout the text the need for monitoring is stressed as a panacea against resistance. Monitoring may be helpful to find resistance hotspots and identify driving factors selecting for and spreading resistance, it will never be enough to solve the problem. In conclusion, the data are useful, but the text is to be improved greatly for this manuscript to become a good article. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Antimicrobial resistance I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kuile BHT. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176271 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176271 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ibrahim ES. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r169360 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-169360 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Apr 2023 Eman S. Ibrahim , Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r169360 The authors had covered all the amends ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors had covered all the amends required and there is no further comments to make. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Microbiology (bacteriology), Molecular biology, Nanotechnology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ibrahim ES. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r169360 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-169360 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Jan 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ibrahim ES. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143258.r161608 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v2#referee-response-161608 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 17 Feb 2023 Eman S. Ibrahim , Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143258.r161608 Dear respected colleagues, I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya ’ thoroughly. The manuscript is discussing an interesting topic; Which ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear respected colleagues, I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya ’ thoroughly. The manuscript is discussing an interesting topic; Which is the danger of antibiotic resistance concerning E.coli and the linkage between antibiotic resistance and poor hygienic condition in rural areas and misuse of antibiotic treatment which in turn make it necessary to make antibiogram for choosing drug of choice before beginning treatment scheme. The work is clearly and accurately presented and cite the current literature. The work is technically sound but the study design is partially appropriate as the study here made screening against only five antibiotic disc which is not enough to build on it a conclusion. Can you explain why was this antibiotic chosen over others? Also why was genotypic identification of antibiotic resistant genes not taken? In the conclusions found in the abstract section you mentioned that the isolated E.coli is pathogenic. What is your practical support for this information as you didn't make detection for virulence genes? So it is preferable to remove the word pathogenic. The methods and statistical analysis and it's interpretation as well as result is well presented. In discussion section concerning reference 15 this paper was discussing Salmonella isolates how are you comparing your result with this paper? It is preferable to remove it. Conclusion section should include future scope of the study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Microbiology (bacteriology), Molecular biology, Nanotechnology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ibrahim ES. Reviewer Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143258.r161608 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v2#referee-response-161608 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Apr 2023 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 12 Apr 2023 Author Response The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason ... Continue reading The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason for using the 5 antibiotics is that those are the commonly prescribed drugs in the health centers in the study area Genotyping was not done as that could have quite expensive for me but that's the work to be done in my next level of study The reference included for salmonella was mistakenly included hence will not appear in revised version Conclusion will be amended accordingly as well in the revised version The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason for using the 5 antibiotics is that those are the commonly prescribed drugs in the health centers in the study area Genotyping was not done as that could have quite expensive for me but that's the work to be done in my next level of study The reference included for salmonella was mistakenly included hence will not appear in revised version Conclusion will be amended accordingly as well in the revised version Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Apr 2023 jared ombuya , Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya 12 Apr 2023 Author Response The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason ... Continue reading The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason for using the 5 antibiotics is that those are the commonly prescribed drugs in the health centers in the study area Genotyping was not done as that could have quite expensive for me but that's the work to be done in my next level of study The reference included for salmonella was mistakenly included hence will not appear in revised version Conclusion will be amended accordingly as well in the revised version The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason for using the 5 antibiotics is that those are the commonly prescribed drugs in the health centers in the study area Genotyping was not done as that could have quite expensive for me but that's the work to be done in my next level of study The reference included for salmonella was mistakenly included hence will not appear in revised version Conclusion will be amended accordingly as well in the revised version Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 04 Oct 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Version 4 (revision) 13 Nov 25 read read read Version 3 (revision) 12 Apr 23 read read read read Version 2 (revision) 26 Jan 23 read Version 1 04 Oct 22 Eman S. Ibrahim , National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt Benno H Ter Kuile , University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Md. Abdus Sobur , Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh; Provita Group, Mymensingh, Bangladesh Abdennaceur Hassen , Research Center of Wastewater technologies, Technopark Borj Cedria, Tunisia Chimdi Mang Kalu , University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa K.B.M Saiful Islam , Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh Mulugeta Kibret , Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kibret M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 4 Mulugeta Kibret , Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kibret M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. Summary This study investigates the presence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli i n environmental samples collected from the Majengo informal settlement in Meru County, Kenya. A total of 61 samples were collected and analyzed using standard microbiological techniques, along with Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion testing against five antibiotics: imipenem, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, and ciprofloxacin. The results reveal a high prevalence of E. coli in the environmental samples, with significant resistance observed against cefoxitin and cefotaxime. In contrast, lower levels of resistance were noted for ciprofloxacin, imipenem, and ceftazidime. Statistical tests were applied to examine the resistance patterns among the antibiotics. The study concludes that inadequate sanitation likely serves as a reservoir for antimicrobial-resistant E. coli, p osing public health risks in informal settlements. It emphasizes the urgent need for improved sanitation, hygiene education, and ongoing surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. 2. Evaluation of specific review questions 2.1 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes, Expanded justification: The manuscript is well-structured, logically organized, and clearly written. The objectives are explicitly stated and aligned with the background. The authors reference a significant amount of recent literature, mostly from the last 5 to 7 years, effectively situating the study within the One Health framework and the context of environmental antimicrobial resistance. The discussion effectively compares the findings with similar studies conducted in Africa and other low- to middle-income settings, which enhances the external relevance of the results. Minor suggestions The introduction could better align with global environmental AMR surveillance frameworks. Some stylistic edits could enhance clarity without impacting scientific accuracy. 2.2 Is the study design appropriate, and is the work technically sound? Answer: Yes Expanded justification: A cross-sectional environmental surveillance design is effective for characterizing antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in high-risk sanitation settings. By sampling across different environmental matrices, the study can capture a variety of exposure pathways. Standard laboratory methods are validated and suitable for assessing phenotypic AMR in resource-limited contexts. Minor limitations The antibiotic panel is limited to five agents, primarily β-lactams. Broader coverage with tetracyclines and aminoglycosides could improve future studies. Molecular characterization of resistance genes was not conducted, but it is recognized as a future research priority. These limitations do not undermine the technical validity of the current work. 2.3 Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Answer: Yes It specifies reagents, incubation conditions, antibiotic concentrations, and analytical software, providing enough detail for independent replication by other researchers in similar settings. 2.4 If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Answer: Yes Expanded justification: The authors appropriately employ non-parametric tests, specifically the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, considering the sample size and data distribution. The statistical results are clearly presented, and interpretations are cautious and consistent with the descriptive findings. Although some analyses, such as antibiotic comparisons, are not crucial for the main conclusions, they are presented transparently and without any misleading interpretations. 2.5 Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Answer: Yes Expanded justification: All data are publicly available on Figshare with documentation and open licensing, ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and allowing for reanalysis by other researchers. 2.6 Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Answer: Yes The conclusions align with the results, focusing on phenotypic resistance and environmental contamination. The authors avoid overgeneralization and frame their findings within the study's limitations. The public health implications related to sanitation, hygiene, and AMR surveillance are reasonable and data-supported. 3. Minor note: Statements regarding pathogenicity are better interpreted in the context of environmental and public health risk rather than clinical virulence; the revised version has improved clarity in this regard. 4. Overall assessment This manuscript offers valuable evidence on environmental antimicrobial resistance in informal settlements and significantly contributes to the One Health AMR literature. The study design, methods, analysis, and conclusions are robust and align well with the objectives. With minor optional refinements, the article meets the standards for scientific rigor and reproducibility for indexing. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise My area of expertise is microbiology and environmental AMR. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kibret M. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438452) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-438452 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Islam K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Dec 2025 | for Version 4 K.B.M Saiful Islam , Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh 0 Views copyright © 2026 Islam K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study investigates antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Escherichia coli isolated from environmental samples collected in the Majengo slum of Meru County, Kenya. The topic is highly relevant given the global concern over antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in low‑resource urban settings. The authors employed a cross‑sectional design, collecting 61 environmental samples (soil, water, and drain swabs) and testing 42 confirmed E. coli isolates against five antibiotics using the disc diffusion method. The study addresses an important One Health issue; environmental AMR in informal settlements, and contributes surveillance data from an underserved Kenyan region. Version 4 incorporates several meaningful revisions, including sample size justification using Cochran’s formula, an extended conclusion linking findings to broader public health implications, and improvements to tables and figures. These revisions demonstrate responsiveness to earlier reviewer critiques, particularly regarding statistical misapplications highlighted by Reviewers 2 and 3. Despite these improvements, several issues remain that must be addressed to meet scientific standards: 1. Literature Context The introduction would benefit from deeper engagement with current AMR surveillance frameworks and comparative studies from similar slum environments. Incorporating recent WHO, FAO, and WOAH reports, as well as regional AMR data from East Africa, would strengthen the scientific grounding and contextual relevance. 2. Study Design and Methods Although the sampling strategy is described, the rationale for stratification and site selection requires clearer justification. The antimicrobial panel is appropriate; however, the study lacks molecular confirmation of resistance determinants, which limits interpretation of resistance mechanisms. While ATCC 25922 was used as a control strain, inclusion of additional quality‑control measures would enhance methodological robustness. Minor typographical errors (e.g., “imepenem” instead of “imipenem,” “ceroxitin” instead of “cefoxitin”) should also be corrected. 3. Statistical Analysis The use of Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed‑Rank tests is appropriate for non‑parametric data; however, the statistical reporting is minimal. P‑values are presented without effect sizes, confidence intervals, or justification for test selection. Interpretation of statistical significance should be linked to environmental variables, sample types, and potential confounders. 4. Data Availability and Reproducibility The manuscript does not provide raw data such as zone diameters, isolate‑level susceptibility profiles, or precise sampling coordinates. For full reproducibility, the authors should upload complete datasets and laboratory protocols to a public repository, as required by F1000Research’s open‑data policy. 5. Conclusions The conclusions regarding resistance patterns and public health risks are generally supported by the results. However, the statement that E. coli isolates are “pathogenic” is not substantiated, as no virulence profiling was performed. Recommendations on sanitation and hygiene are appropriate but should be framed within the study’s methodological limitations. Recommendations for Improvement Expand the literature review with current AMR surveillance references and regional comparative studies. Provide clearer justification for sampling design, stratification, and site selection. Include raw data (zone diameters, isolate metadata) and upload full datasets to a public repository. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals alongside p‑values. Clarify study limitations and avoid overgeneralization regarding pathogenicity. This study has the potential to contribute meaningfully to environmental AMR surveillance in informal settlements. Addressing the points above will substantially improve the scientific rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability of the work. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Antimicrobial Resistance, Microbiology, Veterinary Public Health, One Health, Environmental Surveillance, Zoonoses, Food Safety, Veterinary Medicine I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Islam KBMS. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r438460) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-438460 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Kalu C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Dec 2025 | for Version 4 Chimdi Mang Kalu , University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa 0 Views copyright © 2025 Kalu C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya" presents the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli from soil, water, and drain swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The topic is interesting and relevant as it addresses the current issues of antimicrobial resistance of the bacterium that is known to cause a series of deaths. However, the manuscript needs some revisions as stipulated below: Abstract: Escherichia coli should be written once and subsequently be written as E. coli . In the method section, there was no information on how the 61 samples were obtained in total. Was the sampling done in triplicate or what? Then, in the results section, I recommend that it be rewritten. For example, “Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively.” “Ceftazidime does not show sensitivity; rather, 28 (66.67%) of isolated E. coli showed sensitivity to ceftazidime.” Please consider restructuring this section. Introduction: This section provided general information on infectious diseases without adequate concentration on E. coli and the diseases or deaths caused. There was no linked information on the occurrence of this bacterium in Kenya, making a clear justification of this study difficult. Hence, I recommend that the introduction be completely restructured with clear justification and objectives. Methods: The ethical consideration statement should come at the end. In the sampling procedure, there was no mention of the number of samples collected from soil, water, and swab. Was the sampling done in duplicates or triplicates? What is the justification for using the size determination method? How did you calculate the standard deviation and the Z-score value? “A serial dilution was performed up to 10 5 for E. coli all dilutions were cultured into MacConkey agar (oxoid CM007) and incubated (Biobase) China at 37°C for 24 hours using microbiological standards of culturing.” Consider splitting this sentence into two…….. “Confirmation of E. coli was done on indole test.” Please indicate the expected results of this confirmation test…….. Five antibiotics were used. However, there was no information on the classes of antibiotics to which they belong. This will help to identify the isolates that were multidrug resistant. Results: This section needs to be rewritten. There is no need for intermediate resistance. It is either susceptible or resistant. “Out of the five antimicrobial agents used, ceftazidime 28 (66.67%) showed the highest sensitivity followed by ciprofloxacin 26 (61.90%) and imepenem 25 (59.52%) respectively.” “Ceftazidime does not show sensitivity; rather, 28 (66.67%) of isolated E. coli showed sensitivity to ceftazidime.” Please consider restructuring this section. Effect this throughout this section………….. “A total of 16 isolates from drain swabs were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. Out of these antimicrobials, 5 (61.25%) were susceptible to the microbial,”…………………..Are you dealing with microbial or specifically E. coli ? Please be specific….. Discussion: The discussion should be strengthened to provide a clear impact of the study in unveiling the antimicrobial resistance of E. coli in Kenya. Conclusion: “This study confirmed the presence of Escherichia coli O157” How did you arrive at this strain? Was there any sequencing of the isolate done to give clear indication of the O157 strain? You can just write…..This study confirmed the presence of Escherichia coli Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Molecular biology, antibiotic resistance, virulence, and water analysis I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kalu CM. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189846.r439717) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4#referee-response-439717 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Hassen A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Sep 2024 | for Version 3 Abdennaceur Hassen , Research Center of Wastewater technologies, Technopark Borj Cedria, Soliman, Tunisia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Hassen A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (3) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Main comments As a whole, I find the article very interesting since it discusses a relevant topic, bacterial multidrug resistance, in a developed African country like Kenya, and a specific situation and environment. The study aimed to determine and provide crucial insights characterizing antimicrobial-resistant strains of Escherichia coli isolated from sanitation environments in the Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya. This statement is clear and concise. This subject is of considerable relevance in light of the importance of infections by antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli strains, such as enteropathogenic and enterotoxigenic strains. These strains of Escherichia coli have been reported worldwide as a major cause of death, especially among young children in low- and middle-income countries, like most African countries. This major cause of death has been exacerbated by antimicrobial misuse, over-the-counter availability, and poor sanitation, especially in low-income areas. Additionally, I always recommend adding a graphical abstract to aid in understanding the study. The graphical abstract, sometimes not required and requested by the journal, gives added value. This helps the reader better understand the reality of the work. On the other hand, the quality and presentation of the graphical abstract, in my opinion, is an excellent indicator concerning the research team. This is because it indicates the validity of their work, its seriousness, and its scientific rigor. The paper is relatively short. It will be a relatively short paper. The manuscript is well-written in English and sometimes requires corrections and intervention. It would be helpful if you could provide me with a Doc manuscript so that I can assist the authors. I summarize my main comments about this work: Abstract I find the abstract well-written, expressive, well-structured, and well-extended. I recommend removing Multidrug resistance since it has the same meaning as “antimicrobial resistance”, and adding “E. Isolates" instead of just “E. coli” and “sanitation environments”. These two keywords should be more indicative and precise concerning this investigation. Introduction A clear introduction to a topic that takes less than a page to introduce and explain the subject. It is nicely presented and properly defended which makes the topic and investigation useful. Furthermore, this introduction demonstrated the high relevance of the topic. I recommend some extension of this introduction considering the importance and abundance of the bibliography on this specific theme in the scientific literature. Of nearly all references cited, 27 references were not within the standards recommended by scientific journals of around 40 references; and once there is a small extension in the introduction, the number of references automatically increases a little. These references were almost all very recent since around 85% of the references were from 2021. After the introduction, the main goals of this study are thoroughly introduced, well-cited, and structured. These goals are clearly expressed and written. Materials and methods All methodologies were well documented and described with all necessary monitoring, including microbiological and statistical tests. Although some corrections are needed to confirm the seriousness of the investigation. Regarding the sampling modality, it requires more explanation in terms of text restructuring. Gram staining technique description is not necessary since this technique is well-known and common. Results and discussion Results queues and text citations are useful and consistent. All results are well-cited, clearly explained, and defended. Concerning this defense, I noticed that the authors cited some very recent references beyond 2021 when defending their results. Figures and tables Although the illustrations are clear, clearly captioned, and well-made; however, Table 6 needs additional captions to aid in understanding and signifying the obtained values, ...etc. Conclusion As a conclusion, I think it is too short, so I think it needs some extension. Decision The work is well done, and consistent and deserves publication in a future issue with a correction. I mean English writing mainly. It is perfectly within the journal's scope. Last, and for all the reasons mentioned above, I recommend the indexing of this work with a minor correction. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Économie de l'eau, Hydrologie environnementale, Microbiologie, Antibiorésistance, Écologie environnementale et moléculaire, Écotoxicologie Processus de traitement de l’eau et de Filtration. Certification, normalisation et accréditation. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (3) Author Response 14 Sep 2024 jared ombuya, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya Thanks you for your comments I will do the corrections posted and share the updated version regards Jared View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 02 Dec 2024 jared ombuya, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya Will do the correction stated. Regards View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 13 Nov 2025 jared ombuya, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya Graphical presentations were already added. Corrections have been done and a new version uploaded View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Hassen A. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176272) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176272 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Sobur M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Jun 2023 | for Version 3 Md. Abdus Sobur , Microbiology and Hygiene, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Mymensingh Division, Bangladesh; Poultry Diagnostic Lab, Provita Group, Mymensingh, Mymensingh Division, Bangladesh 0 Views copyright © 2023 Sobur M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya" has presented the prevalence of antibiotic resistance E. coli from soil, water and drains swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The topic has been chosen by the Authors has importance in One Health view point. However, the study design has some serous faults particularly, in statistical analysis. In addition, the whole manuscript requires major revisions in terms of scientific writing and sentence corrections. Over all the manuscript is not at the stage of indexing. Due to no line number, line wise correction is not possible. I have written the report based in section. Abstract: The Authors can write as E. coli after first use. The result section should be rewritten. The authors have mentioned the sensitive prevalence first, and then intermediate finally, the resistance pattern. They should write the resistance pattern first and then sensitive pattern if they feel sensitive pattern is important. No need to mention the intermediate pattern in abstract. To me, only resistance pattern is enough for abstract section. In conclusion, there is no indication in results and methods of abstract to say E. col as pathogenic and even no clue in the whole manuscript. What is the basis of this finding? Keywords: Why did the Authors use multidrug resistance as keywords when they have not identified multidrug resistance in their study? Introduction: As the background and justification of the study "introduction" section is not well written. The Authors have studied on E. coli in a particular area and they have mentioned the area as "contaminated" in the title. However, they have not indicated any linkage to be the area as contaminated. In addition, they have not described the area, people live there and their occupation which are important for E. coli contamination as well as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) relation. This information would help to formulate the justification of the study. It was mainly to convince the reader why the area is contaminated with AMR E. coli. Unfortunately, the justification of the study is absent here. Furthermore, there is no aim mentioned as well. Methods: Sample size determination: Seems the reference (7) is not correct. On top of that, the Authors have not mentioned the meaning of the values they used in the formula. In addition, as per the equation no. of samples will be 246 not 61. The calculation is correct. Sample processing: How much tap water was collected? The Authors collected 500 ml river water in 500 ml bottle that is not a good practice. The bottle should be larger than the collection amount to prevent contamination. Samples preparation prior to the inoculation: Although the Authors are saying sample preparation prior to inoculation however, they have mentioned the culture procedures here as well. And they have written the microbial techniques separately bellow. No need to write separately as already mentioned. It was best to identify the E. coli by molecular technique. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: Five antibiotics were selected among them, three were cephalosporin, one carbapenem (these four are B-lactams) and one Fluoroquinolones. Therefore, categorically only two types of antibiotics was selected. For this selection, it was best to identify ESBL among the E. coli isolates. Data analysis: Before doing any statistical analysis, maintaining minimum sample number (from population) should be followed otherwise statistical analysis get lower importance. In addition, comparing among antibiotics in this study is not useful as most of the antibiotics fall in the same group. Comparing among group will not be useful as well as one B-lactams have four antibiotics and Fluoroquinolones has only one antibiotics. Therefore, this analysis does not add any value to this study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Antibiotic Resistance, Virulence, Veterinary Microbiology, Food Microbiology, Poultry Health, One Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Sobur MA. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176275) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176275 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kuile B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Jun 2023 | for Version 3 Benno H Ter Kuile , Swammerdam Institute of Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kuile B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This manuscript describes the level of resistance of Escherichia coli isolated from soil, water and drains swabs in a poor sanitation area in Kenya. The data are of interest as information about antimicrobial resistance in such environment is essential for a global OneHealth approach. While the data collection has been performed correctly, the data processing is substandard. A considerable revision of the results section will be needed. The application of statistics is incorrect in many instances, but luckily often not required. I have looked up reference 7 on the sample size, but I could not find the equation the authors use. However, the final sample size (41 E. coli positive samples) is on the low side, but that does not invalidate the study. Tables 5 and 7 and figure 6 are useless, because antibiotics are not experimental groups, so the p-values are meaningless. Throughout the study numbers are mentioned that are either incomprehensible, or don’t add up. In table 2, first two lines, the same numbers do not have the same percentages and they don’t add up to 100. Line 3: if 10 = 63.34%, then 2 cannot be 13.34 and if 2 is 13.34, then 4 cannot be 23.34. This is only one example, but throughout the manuscript numbers are flawed, don’t add up and simply don’t make sense. A sentence like “Out of these antimicrobials, 5 (50.48%) were susceptible, 5 (22.86%) were intermediate and 5 (26.67%) were resistant.” is impossible to interpret. Antimicrobials are not susceptible, intermediate or resistant; microbes are or are not. One final example: throughout the text the need for monitoring is stressed as a panacea against resistance. Monitoring may be helpful to find resistance hotspots and identify driving factors selecting for and spreading resistance, it will never be enough to solve the problem. In conclusion, the data are useful, but the text is to be improved greatly for this manuscript to become a good article. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Antimicrobial resistance I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kuile BHT. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r176271) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-176271 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ibrahim E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Apr 2023 | for Version 3 Eman S. Ibrahim , Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ibrahim E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors had covered all the amends required and there is no further comments to make. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Microbiology (bacteriology), Molecular biology, Nanotechnology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Ibrahim ES. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144571.r169360) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v3#referee-response-169360 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ibrahim E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. 17 Feb 2023 | for Version 2 Eman S. Ibrahim , Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ibrahim E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear respected colleagues, I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya ’ thoroughly. The manuscript is discussing an interesting topic; Which is the danger of antibiotic resistance concerning E.coli and the linkage between antibiotic resistance and poor hygienic condition in rural areas and misuse of antibiotic treatment which in turn make it necessary to make antibiogram for choosing drug of choice before beginning treatment scheme. The work is clearly and accurately presented and cite the current literature. The work is technically sound but the study design is partially appropriate as the study here made screening against only five antibiotic disc which is not enough to build on it a conclusion. Can you explain why was this antibiotic chosen over others? Also why was genotypic identification of antibiotic resistant genes not taken? In the conclusions found in the abstract section you mentioned that the isolated E.coli is pathogenic. What is your practical support for this information as you didn't make detection for virulence genes? So it is preferable to remove the word pathogenic. The methods and statistical analysis and it's interpretation as well as result is well presented. In discussion section concerning reference 15 this paper was discussing Salmonella isolates how are you comparing your result with this paper? It is preferable to remove it. Conclusion section should include future scope of the study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Microbiology (bacteriology), Molecular biology, Nanotechnology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Apr 2023 jared ombuya, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru, Kenya The reason why I concluded that the organism is pathogenic is that I did serotyping of E coli strains and one strain was positive for the test The reason for using the 5 antibiotics is that those are the commonly prescribed drugs in the health centers in the study area Genotyping was not done as that could have quite expensive for me but that's the work to be done in my next level of study The reference included for salmonella was mistakenly included hence will not appear in revised version Conclusion will be amended accordingly as well in the revised version View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Ibrahim ES. Peer Review Report For: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from contaminated areas of Majengo slum in Meru County, Kenya [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1133 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143258.r161608) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v2#referee-response-161608 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Ombuya J et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133", templates : { twitter : "Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli.... Ombuya J et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1133/v4" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/124121/189846") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "189846"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "152450": 0, "152448": 0, "152449": 0, "158859": 0, "176270": 0, "176271": 15, "158860": 0, "153741": 0, "176269": 0, "176274": 0, "176275": 8, "169360": 14, "176272": 14, "176273": 0, "176278": 0, "176276": 0, "176277": 0, "439711": 0, "439718": 0, "435494": 0, "439719": 0, "435495": 0, "439716": 0, "435492": 0, "439717": 6, "435493": 0, "439714": 0, "435490": 0, "439715": 0, "435491": 0, "439712": 0, "439713": 0, "435489": 0, "435498": 0, "439720": 0, "435496": 0, "435497": 0, "163885": 0, "154802": 0, "438454": 0, "154803": 0, "438455": 0, "438452": 2, "438453": 0, "438451": 0, "154804": 0, "154805": 0, "438460": 7, "438458": 0, "438459": 0, "438456": 0, "438457": 0, "156866": 0, "433478": 0, "156867": 0, "433479": 0, "433476": 0, "433477": 0, "161606": 0, "433474": 0, "161607": 0, "433475": 0, "161604": 0, "161605": 0, "161610": 0, "161611": 0, "161608": 30, "161609": 0, "433482": 0, "433483": 0, "161612": 0, "433480": 0, "433481": 0, "152410": 0, "152411": 0, "154206": 0, "152414": 0, "154207": 0, "154204": 0, "152412": 0, "154205": 0, "152413": 0, "154208": 0, "158954": 0, "432366": 0, "155627": 0, "432367": 0, "158952": 0, "158953": 0, "155628": 0, "155629": 0, "432368": 0, "432369": 0, "152447": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "ed032d3d-ae56-4701-8c6a-394c1f6ce416"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });