Home Water Treatment Habits and Effectiveness in a Rural Arizona Community

Effect of an Arsenic Mitigation Program on Arsenic Exposure in American Indian Communities: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of the Community-Led Strong Heart Water Study Program

BACKGROUND

Chronic arsenic exposure has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease; diabetes; cancers of the lung, pancreas and prostate; and all-cause mortality in American Indian communities in the Strong Heart Study.

OBJECTIVE

The Strong Heart Water Study (SHWS) designed and evaluated a multilevel, community-led arsenic mitigation program to reduce arsenic exposure among private well users in partnership with Northern Great Plains American Indian Nations.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the SHWS arsenic mitigation program over a 2-y period on a) urinary arsenic, and b) reported use of arsenic-safe water for drinking and cooking. The cRCT compared the installation of a point-of-use arsenic filter and a mobile Health (mHealth) program (3 phone calls; SHWS mHealth and Filter arm) to a more intensive program, which included this same program plus three home visits (3 phone calls and 3 home visits; SHWS Intensive arm).

RESULTS

A 47% reduction in urinary arsenic [geometric mean  ( GM ) = 13.2  to  7.0 μ g / g creatinine] was observed from baseline to the final follow-up when both study arms were combined. By treatment arm, the reduction in urinary arsenic from baseline to the final follow-up visit was 55% in the mHealth and Filter arm (GM = 14.6  to  6.55 μ g / g creatinine) and 30% in the Intensive arm (GM = 11.2  to  7.82 μ g / g creatinine). There was no significant difference in urinary arsenic levels by treatment arm at the final follow-up visit comparing the Intensive vs. mHealth and Filter arms: GM ratio of 1.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.77, 1.90). In both arms combined, exclusive use of arsenic-safe water from baseline to the final follow-up visit significantly increased for water used for cooking (17% to 53%) and drinking (12% to 46%).

DISCUSSION

Delivery of the interventions for the community-led SHWS arsenic mitigation program, including the installation of a point-of-use arsenic filter and a mHealth program on the use of arsenic-safe water (calls only, no home visits), resulted in a significant reduction in urinary arsenic and increases in reported use of arsenic-safe water for drinking and cooking during the 2-y study period. These results demonstrate that the installation of an arsenic filter and phone calls from a mHealth program presents a promising approach to reduce water arsenic exposure among private well users. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12548.

Microplastic Removal from Drinking Water Using Point-of-Use Devices

The occurrence of microplastics in drinking water has drawn increasing attention due to their ubiquity and unresolved implications regarding human health. Despite achieving high reduction efficiencies (70 to >90%) at conventional drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs), microplastics remain. Since human consumption represents a small portion of typical household water use, point-of-use (POU) water treatment devices may provide the additional removal of microplastics (MPs) prior to consumption. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of commonly used pour-through POU devices, including those that utilize combinations of granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX), and microfiltration (MF), with respect to MP removal. Treated drinking water was spiked with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) fragments, along with nylon fibers representing a range of particle sizes (30–1000 µm) at concentrations of 36–64 particles/L. Samples were collected from each POU device following 25, 50, 75, 100 and 125% increases in the manufacturer’s rated treatment capacity, and subsequently analyzed via microscopy to determine their removal efficiency. Two POU devices that incorporate MF technologies exhibited 78–86% and 94–100% removal values for PVC and PET fragments, respectively, whereas one device that only incorporates GAC and IX resulted in a greater number of particles in its effluent when compared to the influent. When comparing the two devices that incorporate membranes, the device with the smaller nominal pore size (0.2 µm vs. ≥1 µm) exhibited the best performance. These findings suggest that POU devices that incorporate physical treatment barriers, including membrane filtration, may be optimal for MP removal (if desired) from drinking water.

Evaluation of a water arsenic filter in a participatory intervention to reduce arsenic exposure in American Indian communities: The Strong Heart Water Study

Many rural populations, including American Indian communities, that use private wells from groundwater for their source of drinking and cooking water are disproportionately exposed to elevated levels of arsenic. However, programs aimed at reducing arsenic in American Indian communities are limited. The Strong Heart Water Study (SHWS) is a randomized controlled trial aimed at reducing arsenic exposure among private well users in American Indian Northern Great Plains communities. The community-led SHWS program installed point-of-use (POU) arsenic filters in the kitchen sink of households, and health promoters delivered arsenic health communication programs. In this study we evaluated the efficacy of these POU arsenic filters in removing arsenic during the two-year installation period. Participants were randomized into two arms. In the first arm households received a POU arsenic filter, and 3 calls promoting filter use (SHWS mobile health (mHealth) & filter arm). The second arm received the same filter and phone calls, and 3 in-person home visits and 3 Facebook messages (SHWS intensive arm) for program delivery. Temporal variability in water arsenic concentrations from the main kitchen faucet was also evaluated. A total of 283 water samples were collected from 50 households with private wells from groundwater (139 filter and 144 kitchen faucet samples). Ninety-three percent of households followed after baseline had filter faucet water arsenic concentrations below the arsenic maximum contaminant level of 10 μg/L at the final visit during our 2 year study period with no difference between study arms (98 % in the intensive arm vs. 94 % in the mHealth & filter arm). No significant temporal variation in kitchen arsenic concentration was observed over the study period (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99). This study demonstrates that POU arsenic filters installed for the community participatory SHWS program were effective in reducing water arsenic concentration in study households in both arms, even with delivery of the POU arsenic filter and mHealth program only. Furthermore, we observed limited temporal variability of water arsenic concentrations from kitchen faucet samples collected over time from private wells in our study setting.

Naturally occurring metals in unregulated domestic wells in Nevada, USA

The dominant source of drinking water in rural Nevada, United States, is privately-owned domestic wells. Because the water from these wells is unregulated with respect to government guidelines, it is the owner's responsibility to test their groundwater for heavy metals and other contaminants. Arsenic, lead, cadmium, and uranium have been previously measured at concentrations above Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines in Nevada groundwater. This is a public health concern because elevated levels of these metals are known to have negative health effects. We recruited individuals through a population health study, the Healthy Nevada Project, to submit drinking water samples from domestic wells for testing. Water samples were returned from 174 households with private wells. We found 22 % had arsenic concentrations exceeding the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L. Additionally, federal, state, or health-based guidelines were exceeded for 8 % of the households for uranium and iron, 6 % for lithium and manganese, 4 % for molybdenum, and 1 % for lead. The maximum observed concentrations of arsenic, uranium, and lead were ∼80, ∼5, and ∼1.5 times the EPA guideline values, respectively. 41 % of households had a treatment system and submitted both pre- and post-treatment water samples from their well. The household treatments were shown to reduce metal concentrations, but concentrations above guideline values were still observed. Many treatment systems cannot reduce the concentration below guideline values because of water chemistry, treatment failure, or improper treatment techniques. These results show the pressing need for continued education and outreach on regular testing of domestic well waters, proper treatment types, and health effects of metal contamination. These findings are potentially applicable to other arid areas where groundwater contamination of naturally occurring heavy metals occurs.

Drinking water and health assessment in a Northern Arizona community

Arizona is a mineral rich state that relies on a mix of surface and ground water supplies for drinking water requirements. Small, rural water systems relying on groundwater frequently encounter elevated metal(loid) measures, particularly inorganic arsenic (As ^{+3, +5}). Such contaminant occurrences can be associated with adverse health outcomes including cancers. The Hopi Environmental Health Project examined drinking water quality and water consumption behaviors from 76 homes on Hopi lands over a four-year period. Water samples were analyzed for 28 elements and compared to US Environmental Protection Agengy (EPA) maximum contaminant levels (MCL). Only municipal/piped water had a mean arsenic concentration (11.01 μg/L) exceeding the MCL (10.0 μg/L). All other water types and elements occurred below MCL when detected. A lifetime cancer and hazard quotient associated with arsenic consumption through each water type was performed and piped/municipal water was found to carry the greatest risks (9.96 cases per 10,000 people). Results from this study showed the potential for multiple contaminants to be present in drinking water from Hopi lands and the need for further health assessment of routine exposure to low doses of contaminant mixtures through drinking water.

Ambient UVR and Environmental Arsenic Exposure in Relation to Cutaneous Melanoma in Iowa

Intermittent sun exposure is the major environmental risk factor for cutaneous melanoma (CM). Cumulative sun exposure and other environmental agents, such as environmental arsenic exposure, have not shown consistent associations. Ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) was used to measure individual total sun exposure as this is thought to be less prone to misclassification and recall bias. Data were analyzed from 1096 CM cases and 1033 controls in the Iowa Study of Skin Cancer and Its Causes, a population-based, case-control study. Self-reported residential histories were linked to satellite-derived ambient UVR, spatially derived environmental soil arsenic concentration, and drinking water arsenic concentrations. In men and women, ambient UVR during childhood and adolescence was not associated with CM but was positively associated during adulthood. Lifetime ambient UVR was positively associated with CM in men (OR for highest vs. lowest quartile: 6.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.21–16.8), but this association was not as strong among women (OR for highest vs. lowest quartile: 2.15, 95% CI 0.84–5.54). No association was detected for environmental soil or drinking water arsenic concentrations and CM. Our findings suggest that lifetime and adulthood sun exposures may be important risk factors for CM.

Under-Sink Activated Carbon Water Filters Effectively Remove Lead from Private Well Water for over Six Months

Children who rely on private well water in the United States have been shown to be at greater risk of having elevated blood lead levels. Evidence-based solutions are needed to prevent drinking water lead exposure among private well users, but minimal data are available regarding the real-world effectiveness of available interventions like point-of-use water treatment for well water. In this study, under-sink activated carbon block water filters were tested for lead and other heavy metals removal in an eight-month longitudinal study in 17 homes relying on private wells. The device removed 98% of all influent lead for the entirety of the study, with all effluent lead levels less than 1 µg/L. Profile sampling in a subset of homes showed that the faucet fixture is a significant source of lead leaching where well water is corrosive. Flushing alone was not capable of reducing first-draw lead to levels below 1 µg/L, but the under-sink filter was found to increase the safety and effectiveness of faucet flushing. The results of this study can be used by individual well users and policymakers alike to improve decision-making around the use of under-sink point-of-use devices to prevent disproportionate lead exposures among private well users.

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.

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.

The Strong Heart Water Study: Informing and designing a multi-level intervention to reduce arsenic exposure among private well users in Great Plains Indian Nations

Elevated arsenic exposure from drinking water is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and skin, lung, and bladder cancer. Arsenic contamination in groundwater supplies disproportionately affects rural populations using private wells. Arsenic mitigation programs for American Indian communities are limited. There is an urgent need for targeted approaches to reduce arsenic exposure for at-risk communities using private wells. Formative research was conducted to inform and design a community-based arsenic mitigation intervention for Lakota and Dakota Nations in the Great Plains Area of the United States, where, in some communities, one-quarter of private wells are estimated to have elevated arsenic. Formative research included semi-structured interviews, a community workshop, intervention-planning workshops, and a pilot study of the developed intervention. Community members prioritize aesthetic qualities of water (e.g. taste, color), safety, and other situational factors (e.g. cost) when considering their drinking and cooking water. Although water safety is a concern, awareness and concern for arsenic vary substantially within communities. To reduce arsenic exposure, community members recommended communication of water test results, home visits for intervention delivery, and reminders to use arsenic-safe water. Findings informed the development of an intervention to prevent arsenic exposure through drinking water and cooking, including health promotion messages and household items to facilitate use of an arsenic removal device (e.g. tankards to store filtered water). The pilot study indicated promising acceptability and operability of the developed intervention. This research provides a model for the development of environmental health interventions in partnership with American Indian and other private well-using communities.

Arsenic‑induced BRCA1 CpG promoter methylation is associated with the downregulation of ERα and resistance to tamoxifen in MCF7 breast cancer cells and mouse mammary tumor xenografts

A significant percentage (~30%) of estrogen receptor-α (ERα)-positive tumors become refractory to endocrine therapies; however, the mechanisms responsible for this resistance remain largely unknown. Chronic exposure to arsenic through foods and contaminated water has been linked to an increased incidence of several tumors and long-term health complications. Preclinical and population studies have indicated that arsenic exposure may interfere with endocrine regulation and increase the risk of breast tumorigenesis. In this study, we examined the effects of sodium arsenite (NaAs^III) exposure in ERα-positive breast cancer cells in vitro and in mammary tumor xenografts. The results revealed that acute (within 4 days) and long-term (10 days to 7 weeks) in vitro exposure to environmentally relevant doses reduced breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and ERα expression associated with the gain of cyclin D1 (CCND1) and folate receptor 1 (FOLR1), and the loss of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) expression. Furthermore, long-term exposure to NaAs^III induced the proliferation and compromised the response of MCF7 cells to tamoxifen (TAM). The in vitro exposure to NaAs^III induced BRCA1 CpG methylation associated with the increased recruitment of DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) and the loss of RNA polymerase II (PolII) at the BRCA1 gene. Xenografts of NaAs^III-preconditioned MCF7 cells (MCF7NaAs^III) into the mammary fat pads of nude mice produced a larger tumor volume compared to tumors from control MCF7 cells and were more refractory to TAM in association with the reduced expression of BRCA1 and ERα, CpG hypermethylation of estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) and BRCA1, and the increased expression of FOLR1. These cumulative data support the hypothesis that exposure to As^III may contribute to reducing the efficacy of endocrine therapy against ERα-positive breast tumors by hampering the expression of ERα and BRCA1 via CpG methylation, respectively of ESR1 and BRCA1.

Potential Effectiveness of Point-of-Use Filtration to Address Risks to Drinking Water in the United States

Numerous contemporary incidents demonstrate that conventional control strategies for municipal tap water have limited ability to mitigate exposures to chemicals whose sources are within distribution systems, such as lead, and chemicals that are not removed by standard treatment technologies, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)/perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). In these situations, point-of-use (POU) controls may be effective in mitigating exposures and managing health risks of chemicals in drinking water, but their potential utility has not been extensively examined. As an initial effort to fill this information gap, we conducted a critical review and analysis of the existing literature and data on the effectiveness of POU drinking water treatment technologies for reducing chemical contaminants commonly found in tap water in the United States. We found that many types of water treatment devices available to consumers in the United States have undergone laboratory testing and often certification for removal of chemical contaminants in tap water, but in most cases their efficacy in actual use has yet to be well characterized. In addition, the few studies of POU devices while "in use" focus on traditional contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but do not generally consider nontraditional contaminants of concern, such as certain novel human carcinogens, industrial chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and flame retardants. Nevertheless, the limited information available at present suggests that POU devices can be highly effective when used prophylactically and when deployed in response to contamination incidents. Based on these findings, we identify future areas of research for assessing the ability of POU filters to reduce health-related chemical contaminants distributed through public water systems and private wells.

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.

Effectiveness of table top water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking water

Arsenic contamination of drinking water is a serious threat to the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. In the United States ~3 million individuals drink well water that contains arsenic levels above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10μg/L. Several technologies are available to remove arsenic from well water including anion exchange, adsorptive media and reverse osmosis. In addition, bottled water is an alternative to drinking well water contaminated with arsenic. However, there are several drawbacks associated with these approaches including relatively high cost and, in the case of bottled water, the generation of plastic waste. In this study, we tested the ability of five tabletop water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking water. We report that only one tabletop water pitcher filter tested, ZeroWater®, reduced the arsenic concentration, both As³⁺ and As⁵⁺, from 1000μg/L to < 3μg/L, well below the MCL. Moreover, the amount of total dissolved solids or competing ions did not affect the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic below the MCL. Thus, the ZeroWater® pitcher filter is a cost effective and short-term solution to remove arsenic from drinking water and its use reduces plastic waste associated with bottled water.

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.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Mothers/Caregivers on Household Water Treatment Methods in Northwest Ethiopia: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study

In Ethiopia, ensuring safe drinking water remains a big challenge where waterborne diseases, including diarrhea cause a great harm in many rural communities. Limited knowledge, misinformation, negative attitude, and lack of experience toward best practices of alternative water treatment technologies were among the leading challenges. A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from June 23 to 30, 2015, in Dabat District. The study participants were selected by using simple random sampling method. Questionnaire-based face-to-face interview technique of data collection was used by 20 data collectors under close supervision with six supervisors. From the total of 845 participants with mother-child paired 49.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] (45.8, 52.5%) had good knowledge, and 54.8%, 95% CI (51.6, 58.3%) had favorable-attitude toward household water treatment. Only 23.1%, 95%CI (20, 26%) of the study participants had practiced household water treatment. Being an urban resident (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.58, 95% CI: [1.62, 4.11]), having good-knowledge (AOR: 2.62, 95% CI: [1.81, 3.79]), favorable attitude (AOR: 1.45, 95% CI: [1.01, 2.08]), and used unimproved water source (AOR: 1.67, 95% CI: [1.11, 2.50]) were factors associated with household water treatment practices in the district. Despite mothers/caregivers having a fairly good knowledge and positive attitude, their practice of treating drinking water at household level was quite low. Thus, well designed strategy for health education on effective water treatment methods through the national health extension program is recommended.

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.

Multimedia exposures to arsenic and lead for children near an inactive mine tailings and smelter site

Children living near contaminated mining waste areas may have high exposures to metals from the environment. This study investigates whether exposure to arsenic and lead is higher in children in a community near a legacy mine and smelter site in Arizona compared to children in other parts of the United States and the relationship of that exposure to the site. Arsenic and lead were measured in residential soil, house dust, tap water, urine, and toenail samples from 70 children in 34 households up to 7 miles from the site. Soil and house dust were sieved, digested, and analyzed via ICP-MS. Tap water and urine were analyzed without digestion, while toenails were washed, digested and analyzed. Blood lead was analyzed by an independent, certified laboratory. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between each environmental media and urine and toenails for arsenic and lead. Geometric mean arsenic (standard deviation) concentrations for each matrix were: 22.1 (2.59) ppm and 12.4 (2.27)ppm for soil and house dust (<63μm), 5.71 (6.55)ppb for tap water, 14.0 (2.01)μg/L for specific gravity-corrected total urinary arsenic, 0.543 (3.22)ppm for toenails. Soil and vacuumed dust lead concentrations were 16.9 (2.03)ppm and 21.6 (1.90) ppm. The majority of blood lead levels were below the limit of quantification. Arsenic and lead concentrations in soil and house dust decreased with distance from the site. Concentrations in soil, house dust, tap water, along with floor dust loading were significantly associated with toenail and urinary arsenic but not lead. Mixed models showed that soil and tap water best predicted urinary arsenic. In our study, despite being present in mine tailings at similar levels, internal lead exposure was not high, but arsenic exposure was of concern, particularly from soil and tap water. Naturally occurring sources may be an additional important contributor to exposures in certain legacy mining areas.