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

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...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Environmental research letters Vol. 19; no. 4; pp. 44020 - 44029
Main Authors:	Wilson, Linnea, Hayes, Wesley, Jones, C Nathan, Eaves, Lauren A, Wait, Kory D, George, Andrew, Freeman, Brady, Mize, Wilson, Fowlkes, Jon, Currie, Jefferson, Burchell, Michael, Gray, Kathleen, Fry, Rebecca C, Pieper, Kelsey J
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Bristol IOP Publishing 01-04-2024
Subjects:	blood lead levels Blood levels Data collection data collection methods Demographics Demography Drinking water Flushing Groundwater Health risk assessment Health risks lead in water private wells Quality standards representation in sampling Representations Sampling Sampling methods Water quality Water quality standards Water wells Well construction Well water North Carolina United States > US
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	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 1143 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 μ g l −1 while the NCWELL database flushed samples (characterizing groundwater) had a value below the reporting level of 5 μ g l −1 . 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 μ g l −1 , resulting in communities being above the USEPA action level. This translated to a 1.0–1.3 μ g dl −1 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.
Bibliography:	ERL-117067.R1
ISSN:	1748-9326 1748-9326
DOI:	10.1088/1748-9326/ad2b2c