Reduction in drinking water arsenic exposure and health risk through arsenic treatment among private well households in Maine and New Jersey, USA

Yang, Qiang; Flanagan, Sara V.; Chillrud, Steven N.; Ross, James; Zeng, Wenke; Culbertson, Charles W.; Spayd, Steve; Backer, Lorraine C.; Smith, Andrew; Zheng, Yan

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139683

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such differences in lead concentrations reported may have altered well stewardship behaviors, from no action to avoidance of the drinking water [10,36,37]. Providing educational materials is critical, as studies document that educational materials can increase well water stewardship behaviors that reduce exposures to contaminants [38,39].…”

Section: Household-level Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lead occurrence in North Carolina well water: importance of sampling representation and collection techniques

Wilson,

Hayes,

Jones

et al. 2024

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private wells often lack centralized oversight, drinking water quality standards, and consistent testing methodologies. For lead in well water, the lack of standardized data collection methods can impact reported measurements, which can misinform health risks. Here, we conducted a targeted community science testing of 1,143 wells across 17 counties in North Carolina (USA) and compared results to state testing data primarily associated with new well construction compiled in the NCWELL database. The goal of our study was to explore the impacts of sampling methodology and household representation on estimated lead exposures and subsequent health risks. At the household scale, we illustrated how sampling and analytical techniques impact lead measurements. The community science testing first draw samples (characterizing drinking water) had a 90th percentile lead value of 12.8 µg/L while the NCWELL database flushed samples (characterizing groundwater) had a value below the reporting level of 5 µg/L. As lead was associated with the corrosion of premise plumbing, flushing prior to collection substantially reduced lead concentrations. At the community scale, we examined how the lack of representation based on household demographics and well construction characteristics impacted the knowledge of lead and blood lead level (BLL) occurrence. When simulating representative demographics of the well populations, we observed that the 90th percentile lead level could differ by up to 6 µg/L, resulting in communities being above the USEPA action level. This translated to a 1.0-1.3 µg/dL difference in predicted geometric mean BLL among infants consuming reconstituted formula. Further, inclusion of less common well construction types also increased lead in water occurrence. Overall, under- and overestimations of lead concentrations associated with differences in sampling techniques and sample representation can misinform conclusions about risks of elevated BLLs associated with drinking water from private wells which may hinder investigations of waterborne lead exposure.

show abstract

Section: Household-level Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lead occurrence in North Carolina well water: importance of sampling representation and collection techniques

Wilson,

Hayes,

Jones

et al. 2024

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Once tested, if domestic well water is found to contain elevated levels of iAs, speciation analysis to ascertain whether the iAs is in the reduced (arsenite, iAs(III)) or the oxidized (arsenate, iAs(V)) form is the key basis for selecting the most appropriate treatment technology. 5,6 However, with iAs being frequently found as iAs(III) in reducing groundwater 7,8 and being subject to oxidation during sampling, transportation, and storage before laboratory analysis, 9−11 this likely results in underestimations of iAs(III) in groundwater systems. Oxidation of iAs(III) occurs after the reducing groundwater is brought from the anoxic subsurface to the oxic surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A call to test iAs in all domestic wells worldwide has thus been put forth . Once tested, if domestic well water is found to contain elevated levels of iAs, speciation analysis to ascertain whether the iAs is in the reduced (arsenite, iAs(III)) or the oxidized (arsenate, iAs(V)) form is the key basis for selecting the most appropriate treatment technology. , …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large Quantity EDTA Addition and Cold Storage in Dark Recommended for Preserving Inorganic Arsenic Speciation in Reducing Groundwater

Duan,

Liu,

Yang

et al. 2024

ACS EST Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of inorganic arsenic (iAs) species, arsenite (iAs(III)) and arsenate (iAs(V)), is recommended by authorities to select treatment technologies for noncompliant domestic well water. However, the effectiveness of various preservation methods for iAs species, including those recommended by regulatory authorities, varies with the added preservatives on-site, groundwater chemistry, and storage conditions. Here, 14 preservation methods, which include three strong acids, a range of concentrations of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid disodium salt (EDTA) and acetic acid (HAc), three storage temperatures, and two kinds of sample bottles, were tested with 62 groundwaters spanning a wide range of chemical compositions from multiple aquifers in northwestern and southern China. Addition of EDTA to a final concentration of 20 mmol/L and storage in opaque bottles and in the dark at 4 °C preserved iAs species up to 60 days. Preservation was achieved through forming Fe-EDTA and Mn-EDTA complexes accompanied by lowering of the pH from 7.0 ± 0.5 to 5.2 ± 0.4 and eliminating photooxidation. Users are recommended to start with the best performing protocol involving adding EDTA to 20 mmol/L on-site, adjusting the EDTA dose considering the initial Fe and Mn concentrations, and final pH. Regulatory authorities are urged to examine iAs preservation protocols in their standard methods for speciation analysis.

show abstract

“…Challenges in managing and mitigating contamination in small water systems are well documented in the United States (Allaire et al, 2018;Oxenford & Barrett, 2016;Rubin, 2013). The presence of inorganic contaminants such as arsenic and nitrate results in the particular challenge of selecting appropriate, specific technologies for contaminant reduction while also balancing cost and sustainability considerations (Smith et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2020). In the United States, between 2008 and 2018, there were over 31,000 violations of an maximum contaminant level (MCL) in 2720 small water systems with arsenic, radionuclides, gross alpha parameters excluding uranium, total trihalomethanes, and nitrate being the most common parameters in exceeded United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) MCLs (based on analysis of data from USEPA, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, concrete evidence to support the health benefits associated with POU/POE treatment (decreased contaminant exposure) is largely based on manufacturer contaminant removal claims which may not be representative of POU/POE devices in practice (AWWARF, 2005;USEPA, 2021) or accurately represent contaminant reduction over time. While some studies of health benefits have examined POU/POE devices in the field (AWWARF, 2005;Smith et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2020), extensive testing of different source water qualities and system configurations makes field testing data difficult to adapt to specific water system characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Triple‐bottom‐line approach for comparing point‐of‐use/point‐of‐entry to centralized water treatment

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small drinking water systems in the United States often suffer from repeated Safe Drinking Water Act water quality violations that necessitate upgrades to the existing centralized systems to achieve compliance. Community water systems (CWSs) need to evaluate the tradeoffs between public health, environmental and economic impacts when choosing these system improvements. This study developed the input and output components of a triple-bottom-line methodology to compare two alternatives: (1) installing a centralized treatment upgrade or (2) a point-of-use/point-of-entry device over a 30-year period, using a health exposure assessment specific contaminants, life cycle analysis of environmental impacts improvement, and life cycle costing to account for the useful life of components and the number of households served by a CWS. We present recommendations and considerations for future usage of the triple-bottom-line approach methodology. K E Y W O R D Sexposure assessment, life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, point-of-entry, point-of-use, triple bottom line approach

show abstract

Reduction in drinking water arsenic exposure and health risk through arsenic treatment among private well households in Maine and New Jersey, USA

Cited by 19 publications

References 34 publications

Lead occurrence in North Carolina well water: importance of sampling representation and collection techniques

Lead occurrence in North Carolina well water: importance of sampling representation and collection techniques

Large Quantity EDTA Addition and Cold Storage in Dark Recommended for Preserving Inorganic Arsenic Speciation in Reducing Groundwater

Triple‐bottom‐line approach for comparing point‐of‐use/point‐of‐entry to centralized water treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About