Arsenic in private well water part 2 of 3: Who benefits the most from traditional testing promotion?

A Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding the Public Health Impact of a School-Based Citizen Science Program to Reduce Arsenic in Private Well Water

BACKGROUND

Exposure to arsenic (As) in well water is a well-documented public health issue for Maine and New Hampshire, as well as for other states in the United States and abroad. Arsenic contamination of well water in these locations is primarily attributed to metasedimentary bedrock that leaches As into groundwater. However, As can also enter groundwater reserves from soils contaminated by the historical use of arsenical pesticides. Approximately half of the households in Maine and New Hampshire rely on private wells, many of which have elevated As. Arsenic exposure has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, reduced infection resistance, and lower intelligence quotient in children. Despite these known health impacts, well water testing and treatment are not universal.

OBJECTIVES

We have approached the problem of low well water testing rates in Maine and New Hampshire communities by developing the All About Arsenic (AAA) project, which engages secondary school teachers and students as citizen scientists in collecting well water samples for analysis of As and other toxic metals and supports their outreach efforts to their communities.

METHODS

We assessed this project's public health impact by analyzing student data relative to existing well water quality datasets in both states. In addition, we surveyed private well owners who contributed well water samples to the project to determine the actions taken to mitigate As in well water.

RESULTS

Students collected 3,070 drinking water samples for metals testing, and 752 exceeded New Hampshire's As standard of 5  ppb . The AAA data has more than doubled the amount of information available to public health agencies about well water quality in multiple municipalities across both states. Students also collected information about well types and treatment systems. Their data reveal that some homeowners did not know what type of wells they had or whether they had filtration systems. Those with filtration systems were often unaware of the type of system, what the system was filtering for, or whether the system was designed to remove As. Through interviews with pilot survey participants, we learned that some had begun mitigating their exposure to As and other toxic metals in response to test results from the AAA project.

DISCUSSION

A school-based approach to collecting and analyzing private well water samples can successfully reach communities with low testing rates for toxic elements, such as As and other metals. Importantly, information generated through the program can impact household decision-making, and students can influence local and state policymaking by sharing information in their communities. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13421.

Revealing the sources of arsenic in private well water using Random Forest Classification and Regression

Exposure to arsenic through private drinking water wells causes serious human health risks throughout the globe. Water testing data indicates there is arsenic contamination in private drinking water wells across New Jersey. To reduce the adverse health risk due to exposure to arsenic in drinking water, it is necessary to identify arsenic sources affecting private wells. Private wells are not regulated by any federal or state agencies through the Safe Drinking Water Act and therefore information is often lacking. To this end, we have developed machine learning algorithms including Random Forest Classification and Regression to decipher the factors contributing to higher arsenic concentration in private drinking water wells in west-central New Jersey. Arsenic concentration in private drinking water wells served as a response variable while explanatory variables were geological bedrock type, soil type, drainage class, land use/cover, and presence of orchards, contaminated sites, and abandoned mines within the 152.4-meter (500 ft) radius of each well. Random Forest Classification and Regression achieved 66 % and 55 % prediction accuracies for arsenic concentration in private drinking water wells, respectively. Overall, both models identify that bedrock, soil, land use/cover, and drainage type (in descending order) are the most important variables contributing to higher arsenic concentration in well water. These models further identify bedrock subgroups at a finer scale including Passaic Formation, Lockatong Formation, Stockton Formation contributing significantly to arsenic concentration in well water. Identification of sources of arsenic contamination in private drinking water wells at such a fine scale facilitates development of more targeted outreach as well as mitigation strategies to improve water quality and safeguard human health.

User experience of point-of-use water treatment for private wells in North Carolina: Implications for outreach and well stewardship

Private well users are potentially exposed to a range of chemical contaminants through their drinking water. Point-of-use (POU) water treatment represents one potential solution to reduce harmful exposures through well water, but well users frequently do not adopt household treatment even if they learn their water is contaminated. This study elucidates the experiences, perceptions, and beliefs of 17 households on private wells in North Carolina that participated in a pilot-scale POU water treatment intervention to better understand the drivers and barriers of POU treatment adoption among well users. The intervention consisted of an under-sink activated carbon block POU filter designed to remove lead and two long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids. Filter effluents and influents were tested monthly for eight months. Questionnaires administered before and after the intervention showed a significant decrease in participants' perceived vulnerability to well water contamination, with 77% feeling vulnerable to poor well water quality before, compared to 23% after the filter was installed. However, the POU filters did not fully eliminate feelings of water insecurity (for example, concerns about exposure to contaminants when bathing remained). Lack of knowledge and skills associated with installing and maintaining POU treatment were important barriers to adoption for some well users. Perceptions of POU treatment were also significantly correlated with the intent to implement other well stewardship behaviors such as well water testing. The results highlight the need for strengthened outreach and support programs that provide technical assistance, education, and financial support for households relying on private wells.

Private groundwater management and risk awareness: A cross-sectional analysis of two age-related subsets in the Republic of Ireland

Risk communication represents the optimal instrument for decreasing the incidence of private groundwater contamination and associated waterborne illnesses. However, despite attempts to promote voluntary well maintenance in high groundwater-reliant regions such as the Republic of Ireland, awareness levels of supply status (e.g. structural integrity) have remained low. As investigations of supply awareness are often thematically narrow and homogeneous with respect to sub-population, revised analyses of awareness among both current and future supply owners (i.e. adults of typical well owner and student age) are necessary. Accordingly, the current study utilised a national survey of well users and an age-based comparison of supply awareness. Awareness was measured among 560 Irish private well users using a multi-domain scoring framework and analysed in conjunction with experiential variables including experience of extreme weather events and previous household infections, and perceived self-efficacy in maintaining supply. Respondents displayed a median overall awareness score of 66.7%, with supply owners (n = 399) and students (n = 161) exhibiting median scores of 75% and 58.3%. Awareness among both combined respondent subsets and well owners was significantly related to gender, well use factors and self-perceived behavioural efficacy while awareness among students was not correlated with any independent variable. Cluster analysis identified three distinct respondent groups characterised by awareness score and gender in both current and future well owner subsets. Male well owners and students displayed higher perceived self-efficacy irrespective of awareness score while female well owners that demonstrated high awareness were significantly more likely to report postgraduate educational (p < 0.001). Findings suggest that recent experience of extreme weather events does not significantly influence supply awareness and mirror previously identified knowledge differences between well owners and young adults. Age, gender, supply use and perceived self-efficacy emerge as recurring focal points and accordingly merit consideration from groundwater and health communication practitioners for future risk interventions.

Predictors of Water Lead Levels in Drinking Water of Homes With Domestic Wells in 3 Illinois Counties

CONTEXT

Millions of US homes receive water from private wells, which are not required to be tested for lead (Pb). An approach to prioritizing high-risk homes for water lead level (WLL) testing may help focus outreach and screening efforts, while reducing the testing of homes at low risk.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) characterize distribution of WLLs and corrosivity in tap water of homes with private residential wells, and (2) develop and evaluate a screening strategy for predicting Pb detection within a home.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Three Illinois counties: Kane (northern), Peoria (central), and Jackson (southern).

PARTICIPANTS

151 private well users from 3 Illinois counties.

INTERVENTION

Water samples were analyzed for WLL and corrosivity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) WLL and corrosivity, and (2) the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of a strategy for prioritizing homes for WLL testing.

RESULTS

Pb was detected (>0.76 ppb) in tap water of 48.3% homes, and 3.3% exceeded 15 ppb, the US Environmental Protection Agency action level for community water systems. Compared with homes built in/after 1987 with relatively low corrosivity, older homes with more corrosive water were far more likely to contain measurable Pb (odds ratio = 11.07; 95% confidence interval, 3.47-35.31). The strategy for screening homes with private wells for WLL had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 42%, positive predictive value of 58%, and negative predictive value of 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pb in residential well water is widespread. The screening strategy for prioritizing homes with private wells for WLL testing is greater than 85% sensitive.

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

Over 2 million mostly rural Americans are at risk of drinking water from private wells that contain arsenic (As) exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L). How well existing treatment technologies perform in real world situations, and to what extent they reduce health risks, are not well understood. This study evaluates the effectiveness of household As treatment systems in southern-central Maine (ME, n = 156) and northern New Jersey (NJ, n = 94) and ascertains how untreated well water chemistry and other factors influence As removal. Untreated and treated water samples, as well as a treatment questionnaire, were collected. Most ME households had point-of-use reverse-osmosis systems (POU RO), while in NJ, dual-tank point-of-entry (POE) whole house systems were popular. Arsenic treatment systems reduced well water arsenic concentrations ([As]) by up to two orders of magnitude, i.e. from a median of 71.7 to 0.8 μg/L and from a mean of 105 to 14.3 μg/L in ME, and from a median of 8.6 to 0.2 μg/L and a mean of 15.8 to 2.1 μg/L in NJ. More than half (53%) of the systems in ME reduced water [As] to below 1 μg/L, compared to 69% in NJ. The treatment system failure rates were 19% in ME (>USEPA MCL of 10 μg/L) and 16% in NJ (>NJ MCL of 5 μg/L). In both states, the higher the untreated well water [As] and the As(III)/As ratio, the higher the rate of treatment failure. POE systems failed less than POU systems, as did the treatment systems installed and maintained by vendors than those by homeowners. The 7-fold reduction of [As] in the treated water reduced skin cancer risk alone from 3765 to 514 in 1 million in ME, and from 568 to 75 in 1 million in NJ.

Improve private well testing outreach efficiency by targeting households based on proximity to a high arsenic well

Research into precautionary action suggests outreach with personally-relevant risk information may help overcome optimistic biases, which have been shown to impede voluntary testing for arsenic by at-risk private well households. Since 2002, New Jersey's Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) has required testing for arsenic during real estate transactions. The PWTA database of over 35,000 geocoded well arsenic tests offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of targeted outreach to neighbors living in proximity to a known high arsenic well with variable risk messaging to motivate testing. In this study, residents of properties (n = 1743) located within 500 ft and between 500 and 1000 ft of a known high arsenic well (>5 μg/L, New Jersey's drinking water arsenic standard) were mailed a notice of the high arsenic result in their neighborhood and offered a free water test. Overall 274 households (16%) requested a test kit and 230 (13%) ultimately submitted a water sample; with significantly higher participation rates among those told their neighborhood well had an arsenic concentration "over 5 times higher" than the standard, compared to those told the concentration was "above." Overall, 25% of wells tested (n = 230), and 47% (n = 66) of non-treated wells located within 500 ft of a well with >25 μg/L arsenic, exceeded the standard for arsenic. Both the arsenic concentration and distance to the neighboring well were significant predictors of exceedance. Given the high proportion of previously untested wells (70%) and their owners' lack of awareness of arsenic in their area (80%), this targeting approach succeeded not only in identifying a much higher proportion of at risk wells than blanket testing by town or county, but also in motivating testing among households unreached by prior awareness-raising activities. In conclusion, geographically and personally-relevant risk targeted messaging and outreach are both efficient and effective.

Private well stewardship within a rural, agricultural Latino community: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Nitrate contamination in groundwater disproportionately impacts agricultural Latino communities, creating a significant hazard for Latinos that rely on private wells. Private well users must conduct water testing and other well stewardship behaviors to ensure that their well water is safe to drink. This study sought to identify the key factors impacting private well water testing behavior in rural, agricultural Latino communities.

METHODS

We conducted 4 focus groups with private well users, 2 in Spanish and 2 in English. We recruited 37 participants from the Lower Yakima Valley, Washington State, a rural, agricultural community with a large Latino population and elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to capture factors impacting testing as guided by the Risk, Attitudes, Norms, Ability, and Self-Regulation (RANAS) model. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted by two coders to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Themes emerged around the factors impacting well stewardship, including well water testing, treatment, and maintenance, and were not specific to nitrate contamination. Private well users reported many of the same factors reported in other communities, with the exception of home repair experience and challenges around landlords and neighbors on shared wells, which have not been reported previously. In addition to landlords and neighbors, lack of actionable information, economic limitations, and lack of technical support emerged as factors that made well stewardship burdensome for individuals. The majority of participants reported using bottled water, including many who used point-of-use or point-of-entry water treatment systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of well stewardship in rural, agricultural Latino communities may suggest the need for interventions at the community, county, or state levels and not at the individual level alone. Additionally, the role of landlords, neighbors on shared wells, and home repair experience in well stewardship represent important areas of exploration for researchers and public health practitioners.

Examining the factors related to bacteriological testing of private wells in Southern Ontario

The incidence of infectious waterborne disease in Canada continues to be a public health issue and can be associated with the source of drinking water. Millions of Canadians relying on unregulated private well water are at increased risk of disease. This study examined relationships between well and owner characteristics and the frequency of microbial testing of private wells in two southern-Ontario counties. Using multi-level logistic regression models, testing frequency (i.e., at least once per year vs. less) was modeled, as both self-reported and laboratory-validated, for associations with owner and well characteristics. For the self-reported outcome, a previous adverse test result significantly increased the odds of being classified as a frequent tester, and owners with a well-head more than 16 inches (40.6 cm) above the ground were at significantly higher odds of being classified as frequent testers compared to those with well-heads less than 16 inches above the ground and those below ground level. For the model based on the laboratory-validated outcome, the odds of an owner being a frequent tester significantly varied with the length of occupancy and the occurrence of a previous adverse result. The absence of associations between other well characteristics and testing frequency suggests that well safety education could benefit these communities.

Risk Communication and Factors Influencing Private Well Testing Behavior: A Systematic Scoping Review

Unregulated private wells may be at risk for certain types of contamination associated with adverse health effects. Well water testing is a primary method to identify such risks, although testing rates are generally low. Risk communication is used as an intervention to promote private well testing behavior; however, little is known about whether these efforts are effective as well as the mechanisms that influence effectiveness. A systematic scoping review was conducted to evaluate the current evidence base for risk communication effectiveness and factors that influence well testing behavior. The review was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework. Data were synthesized using a health behavior model (Health Belief Model) to identify areas amenable to intervention and factors to consider when designing risk communication interventions. We identified a significant shortage of studies examining the effectiveness of risk communication interventions targeted to well testing behavior, with only two quasi-experimental studies identified. The review also identified seventeen studies that examined or described factors relating to well testing behavior. The two empirical studies suggest risk communication methods can be successful in motivating private well owners to test their water, while the remaining studies present considerations for developing effective, community-specific content.

Factors influencing perceptions of private water quality in North America: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

An estimated four million and 43 million people in Canada and the USA use private water supplies. Private water supplies are vulnerable to waterborne disease outbreaks. Private water supplies in Canada and the USA are often unregulated and private water management is often a choice left to the owner. Perceptions of water quality become important in influencing the adoption of private water stewardship practices, therefore safeguarding public health.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to understand factors that shape perceptions of water quality among private water users. We searched six computer databases (Web of science, Medline, Scopus, EBSCO, PubMed and Agricola). The search was limited to primary peer-reviewed publications, grey literature and excluded conference proceedings, review articles, and non-peer review articles. We restricted the search to papers published in English and to articles which published data on surveys of private water users within Canada and the USA. The search was also restricted to publications from 1986 to 2017. The literature search generated 36,478 records. Two hundred and four full text were reviewed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles were included in the final review. Several factors were found to influence perceptions of water quality including organoleptic preferences, chemical and microbiological contaminants, perceived risks, water well infrastructure, past experience with water quality, external information, demographics, in addition to the values, attitudes, and beliefs held by well owners.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the factors that shape perceptions of water quality among private water users is an important step in developing private water management policies to increase compliance towards water testing and treatment in Canada and the USA. As many jurisdictions in Canada and the USA do not have mandatory private water testing or treatment guidelines, delineating these factors is an important step in informing future research and guiding policy on the public health of private water systems.

Seasonal Variation of Water Quality in Unregulated Domestic Wells

In the United States (U.S.), up to 14% of the population depend on private wells as their primary drinking water source. The U.S. government does not regulate contaminants in private wells. The goals of this study were to investigate the quality of drinking water from unregulated private wells within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of an effluent-dominated river in the arid Southwest, determine differences in contaminant levels between wet and dry seasons, and identify contributions from human sources by specifically measuring man-made organic contaminants (perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfate (PFOS), and sucralose). Samples were collected during two dry seasons and two wet seasons over the course of two years and analyzed for microbial (Escherichia coli), inorganic (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nitrate), and synthetic organic (PFOA, PFOS, and sucralose) contaminants. Arsenic, nitrate, and Escherichia coli concentrations exceeded their respective regulatory levels of 0.01 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 1 colony forming unit (CFU)/100 mL, respectively. The measured concentrations of PFOA and PFOS exceeded the respective Public Health Advisory level. Arsenic, PFOA, PFOS, and sucralose were significantly higher during the dry seasons, whereas E. coli was higher during the wet seasons. While some contaminants were correlated (e.g., As and Hg ρ = 0.87; PFOA and PFOS ρ = 0.45), the lack of correlation between different contaminant types indicates that they may arise from different sources. Multi-faceted interventions are needed to reduce exposure to drinking water above health-based guidelines.

Health protective behavior following required arsenic testing under the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act

Exposure to naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater is a public health concern, particularly for households served by unregulated private wells. At present, one of the greatest barriers to exposure reduction is a lack of private well testing due to difficulties in motivating individual private well owners to take protective actions. Policy and regulations requiring testing could make a significant contribution towards universal screening of private well water and arsenic exposure reduction. New Jersey's Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) requires tests for arsenic during real estate transactions; however, the regulations do not require remedial action when maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are exceeded. A follow-up survey sent to residents of homes where arsenic was measured above the state MCL in PWTA-required tests reveals a range of mitigation behavior among respondents (n = 486), from taking no action to reduce exposure (28%), to reporting both treatment use and appropriate maintenance and monitoring behavior (15%). Although 86% of respondents recall their well was tested during their real estate transaction, only 60% report their test showed an arsenic problem. Treatment systems are used by 63% of households, although half were installed by a previous owner. Among those treating their water (n = 308), 57% report that maintenance is being performed as recommended, although only 31% have tested the treated water within the past year. Perceived susceptibility and perceived barriers are strong predictors of mitigation action. Among those treating for arsenic, perceived severity is associated with recent monitoring, and level of commitment is associated with proper maintenance. Mention of a treatment service agreement is a strong predictor of appropriate monitoring and maintenance behavior, while treatment installed by a previous owner is less likely to be maintained. Though the PWTA requires that wells be tested, this study finds that not all current well owners are aware the test occurred or understood the implications of their arsenic results. Among those that have treatment installed to remove arsenic, poor monitoring and maintenance behaviors threaten to undermine intentions to reduce exposure. Findings suggest that additional effort, resources, and support to ensure home buyers pay attention to, understand, and act on test results at the time they are performed may help improve management of arsenic water problems over the long term and thus the PWTA's public health impact.

Arsenic Exposure and Cancer Risk Reduction with Local Ordinance Requiring Whole-House Dual-Tank Water Treatment Systems

Arsenic, a known human carcinogen, occurs naturally in groundwater in New Jersey and many other states and countries. A number of municipalities in the Piedmont, Highlands, and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces of New Jersey have a high proportion of wells that exceed the New Jersey maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 µg/L. Hopewell Township, located in Mercer County and the Piedmont Province, has a progressive local ordinance which requires the installation of dual-tank, point-of-entry treatment systems on affected wells.Thisprovided a unique study opportunity. Of the 55 homes with dual-tank POE treatment systems recruited into this study, 51 homes (93%) had arsenic levels under the MCL at the kitchen sink, regardless of years in service and/or maintenance schedule adherence. Based on the study participants' water consumption and arsenic concentrations, we estimate that Hopewell's arsenic water treatment ordinance, requiring POE dual-tank arsenic treatment, reduced the incidence of excess lifetime (70-year) bladder and lung cancers from 121 (1.7 cancer cases/year) to 16 (0.2 cancer cases/year) preventing 105 lifetime cancer cases (1.5 cases/year). Because the high risk of cancer from arsenic can be mitigated with effective arsenic water treatment systems, this ordinance should be considered a model for other municipalities.

Private-well stewardship among a general population based sample of private well-owners

Private well stewardship, including on-going testing and treatment, can ensure private well users are able to maintain source-water quality and prevent exposures to potentially harmful constituents in primary drinking water supplies. Unlike municipal water supplies, private well users are largely responsible for their own testing and treatment and well stewardship is often minimal. The importance of factors influencing regular testing, and treatment behaviors, including knowledge, risk perception, convenience and social norms, can vary by geography and population characteristics. The primary goals of this study were to survey a general statewide population of private well users in Wisconsin in order to quantify testing and treatment patterns and gather data on motivations and barriers to well stewardship. The majority of respondents reported using and drinking well water daily but only about one half of respondents reported testing their wells in the last ten years and of these, only 10% reported testing in the last 12months. Bacteria and nitrates were contaminants most often tested; and, a private laboratory most often conducted testing. The most commonly reported water treatment was a water softener. Living in a particular geographic region and income were the most significant predictors of water testing and treatment. Iron and hardness, which influence water aesthetics but not always safety, were the most commonly reported water quality problems. Health concerns or perceived lack thereof were, respectively, motivators and barriers to testing and treatment. Limited knowledge of testing and treatment options were also identified as barriers. Results confirm previous findings that well stewardship practices are minimal and often context specific. Understanding the target population's perceptions of risk and knowledge are important elements to consider in identifying vulnerable populations and developing education and policy efforts to improve well stewardship.

Hazard Ranking Method for Populations Exposed to Arsenic in Private Water Supplies: Relation to Bedrock Geology

Approximately one million people in the UK are served by private water supplies (PWS) where main municipal water supply system connection is not practical or where PWS is the preferred option. Chronic exposure to contaminants in PWS may have adverse effects on health. South West England is an area with elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater and over 9000 domestic dwellings here are supplied by PWS. There remains uncertainty as to the extent of the population exposed to arsenic (As), and the factors predicting such exposure. We describe a hazard assessment model based on simplified geology with the potential to predict exposure to As in PWS. Households with a recorded PWS in Cornwall were recruited to take part in a water sampling programme from 2011 to 2013. Bedrock geologies were aggregated and classified into nine Simplified Bedrock Geological Categories (SBGC), plus a cross-cutting “mineralized” area. PWS were sampled by random selection within SBGCs and some 508 households volunteered for the study. Transformations of the data were explored to estimate the distribution of As concentrations for PWS by SBGC. Using the distribution per SBGC, we predict the proportion of dwellings that would be affected by high concentrations and rank the geologies according to hazard. Within most SBGCs, As concentrations were found to have log-normal distributions. Across these areas, the proportion of dwellings predicted to have drinking water over the prescribed concentration value (PCV) for As ranged from 0% to 20%. From these results, a pilot predictive model was developed calculating the proportion of PWS above the PCV for As and hazard ranking supports local decision making and prioritization. With further development and testing, this can help local authorities predict the number of dwellings that might fail the PCV for As, based on bedrock geology. The model presented here for Cornwall could be applied in areas with similar geologies. Application of the method requires independent validation and further groundwater-derived PWS sampling on other geological formations.

Lessons Learned from Arsenic Mitigation among Private Well Households

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Many thousands of research papers have been published on the occurrence, health effects, and mitigation of arsenic in drinking water sourced from groundwater around the world. Here, an attempt is made to summarize this large body of knowledge into a small number of lessons.

RECENT FINDINGS

This is an opinion paper reflecting on why we are far from the goal of eliminating this silent and widespread poison to protect the health of many millions. The lessons are drawn from research in countries representing a range of economic development and cultural contexts. The replacement of household wells with centralized water supplies has reduced population level exposure to moderate (50-100 μg/L) and high (>100 μg/L) levels of arsenic in drinking water in some countries as they become wealthier. However, there remains a very large rural population in all countries where the exposure to low levels (10-50 μg/L) of arsenic continues due to its dispersed occurrence in the environment and frequent reliance on private well. A set of natural (geological and biological), socioeconomic, and behavioral barriers to progress are summarized as lessons. They range from challenges in identifying the exposed households due to spatially heterogeneous arsenic distribution in groundwater, difficulties in quantifying the exposure let alone reducing the exposure, failures in maintaining compliance to arsenic drinking water standards, to misplaced risk perceptions and environmental justice issues. Environmental health professionals have an ethical obligation to help As mitigation among private well water households, along with physicians, hydrogeologists, water treatment specialists, community organizations, and government.

The Case for Universal Screening of Private Well Water Quality in the U.S. and Testing Requirements to Achieve It: Evidence from Arsenic

BACKGROUND

The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates >170,000 public water systems to protect health, but not >13 million private wells. State and local government requirements for private well water testing are rare and inconsistent; the responsibility to ensure water safety remains with individual households. Over the last two decades, geogenic arsenic has emerged as a significant public health concern due to high prevalence in many rural American communities.

OBJECTIVES

We build the case for universal screening of private well water quality around arsenic, the most toxic and widespread of common private water contaminants. We argue that achieving universal screening will require policy intervention, and that testing should be made easy, accessible, and in many cases free to all private well households in the United States, considering the invisible, tasteless, odorless, and thus silent nature of arsenic.

DISCUSSION

Our research has identified behavioral, situational and financial barriers to households managing their own well water safety, resulting in far from universal screening despite traditional public health outreach efforts. We observe significant socioeconomic disparities in arsenic testing and treatment when private water is unregulated. Testing requirements can be a partial answer to these challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal screening, achieved through local testing requirements complemented by greater community engagement targeting biologically and socioeconomically vulnerable groups, would reduce population arsenic exposure greater than any promotional efforts to date. Universal screening of private well water will identify the dangers hidden in America's drinking water supply and redirect attention to ensure safe water among affected households. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP629.

Arsenic in private well water part 3 of 3: Socioeconomic vulnerability to exposure in Maine and New Jersey

Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic element often concentrated in groundwater at levels unsafe for human consumption. Private well water in the United States is mostly unregulated by federal and state drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the over 13 million U.S. households regularly depending on private wells for their water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There is a consistent graded association with health outcomes at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S. Differential exposure to environmental risk may be contributing to this persistent SES-health gradient. Environmental justice advocates cite overwhelming evidence that income and other SES measures are consistently inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions including pollutants, toxins, and their impacts. Here we use private well household surveys from two states to investigate the association between SES and risks for arsenic exposure, examining the potentially cumulative effects of residential location, testing and treatment behavior, and psychological factors influencing behavior. We find that the distribution of natural arsenic hazard in the environment is socioeconomically random. There is no evidence that higher SES households are avoiding areas with arsenic or that lower SES groups are disproportionately residing in areas with arsenic. Instead, disparities in exposure arise from differing rates of protective action, primarily testing well water for arsenic, and secondly treating or avoiding contaminated water. We observe these SES disparities in behavior as well as in the psychological factors that are most favorable to these behaviors. Assessment of risk should not be limited to the spatial occurrence of arsenic alone. It is important that social vulnerability factors are incorporated into risk modeling and identifying priority areas for intervention, which should include strategies that specifically target socioeconomically vulnerable groups as well as all the conditions which cause these disparities in testing and treatment behavior.

Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: Impact of the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act on household testing and mitigation behavior

Regularly ingesting water with elevated arsenic increases adverse health risks. Since September 2002, the NJ Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) has required testing untreated well water for arsenic during real estate transactions in 12 counties. Its implementation provides an opportunity to investigate the effects of policy intervention on well testing and treatment behavior. Here we analyze results of a survey mailed to 1943 random addresses (37% response), including responses from 502 private well households who purchased their homes prior to PWTA commencement and 168 who purchased after. We find the PWTA has significantly increased arsenic testing rates in an area where 21% of wells contain arsenic above the 5μg/L NJ drinking water standard. The PWTA has allowed identification of more wells with arsenic (20% of post-PWTA vs. 4% of pre-PWTA households) and more treatment for arsenic (19% of post-PWTA vs. 3% of pre-PWTA households). Such an Act is a partial answer to significant socioeconomic disparities in testing observed among households for whom it is not required. Additionally residents purchasing homes since 2002 are younger and disproportionately more likely to have children in their household (60% vs. 32%), a priority group given their particular vulnerability to effects of arsenic. Despite more wells tested under the PWTA, post-PWTA well owners forget or misremember arsenic test results more often, are more likely to report not knowing what kind of treatment they are using, and are not reporting better maintenance or monitoring of their treatment systems than pre-PWTA households. This suggests serious challenges to reducing arsenic exposure remain even when testing is a requirement. Furthermore, only a fraction of wells have been tested under the PWTA due to the slow pace of housing turnover. We recommend more public resources be made available to support private well testing among socially and biologically vulnerable groups.