Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Untapping the Crowd: Consumer Detection and Control of Lead in Drinking Water
EPA Grant Number: CR839375Title: Untapping the Crowd: Consumer Detection and Control of Lead in Drinking Water
Investigators: Edwards, Marc , Berglund, Emily , Pieper, Kelsey , Katner, Adrienne , Cooper, Caren , Roy, Siddhartha , Kriss, Rebecca , Scherer, Michelle
Institution: Virginia Tech , University of Iowa , Louisiana State University , North Carolina State University , Texas A & M University
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2021 (Extended to March 31, 2023)
Project Amount: $1,981,500
RFA: National Priorities: Transdisciplinary Research into Detecting and Controlling Lead in Drinking Water (2017) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Drinking Water , Water
Objective:
The 1991 EPA Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is based on a premise of shared responsibility between consumers and water suppliers for reducing water lead exposure. Utility-centric activities (regulatory sampling, optimal corrosion control, and lead pipe replacement) have understandably received much more emphasis in the LCR and its revisions. As public health agencies now strive to further reduce lead exposure, a complementary program of consumer-centric activities and responsibilities is needed. We proposed and executed research in which citizen science played a central role in data collection, to develop predictive models that identify areas vulnerable to high water lead, and empower consumers with interventions to control risks.
The goal was to achieve the following objectives:
(1) INVENTORY data on drinking water lead levels and infrastructure to spatially identify risks,
(2) PREDICT individual household and community risks using quantitative models,
(3) EVALUATE the models through community and citizen science participation in data inventory, data interpretation, and model validation including low-cost in-home water lead testing,
(4) INTERVENE by identifying cost effective lead reduction strategies to protect consumers, and
(5) SCALE results for dissemination nationally through stakeholders and U.S. states.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
(1) INVENTORY. We collected and collated several lead in water datasets through citizen sampling in North Carolina, Chicago metro area, IL, and Louisiana. We also developed a crowdsourced website in which consumers can inventory their service line and home plumbing materials. Over two thousand consumers contributed data to this website and vetted predictive risk models with both at home and laboratory water lead sampling. Overall, crowd sourced data collection and monitoring, cannot yet compete with utility-centric approaches to reduce public health risks, although these methods could be highly complementary and have synergistic benefits with additional development. We also developed epidemiological methods that use biosolids composite sampling and blood lead surveillance to track lead release in real time using existing data collected at wastewater treatment plants. This approach shows promise in some circumstances, including a case study retroactively tracking water lead during the Flint, MI water crisis and recovery.
(2) PREDICT. During our inventory and at home sampling, we confirmed that household lead levels in public water supplies using corrosion control are highly unpredictable. This reinforces the importance of testing water at consumers homes to determine risks. Predictive models are much more accurate in predicting risks for private wells that do not have corrosion control, since the very low pH levels present in such systems, markedly increase lead leaching. Our Bayesian Belief Network models applied to wells in Virginia showed promise, especially using complementary water testing data for pH and other parameters using at home test kits.
(3) EVALUATE. Off-the-shelf at home water test kits were generally highly inaccurate at detecting lead. Most could not detect the low levels of lead near the 15 ppb EPA action level that posed health risks. One presence/absence kit had some promise, but it could not detect particulate lead risks that pose the greatest health risks in cities using corrosion control. At home testing for copper risks showed greater promise since the levels of health concern are much higher. Moreover, in private well systems, waters that caused high levels of copper also had a greater likelihood of having elevated lead. Decision trees were developed to help consumers identify and address problems with elevated copper in drinking water.
(4) INTERVENE. The project evaluated public health protections resulting from use of point of use filters and public education. A number of publications were developed and made publicly available for consumers and teachers to improve consumer education.
(5) SCALE. We disseminated our results through outreach efforts to Cooperative Extension from 12 states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia). We also attempted to scale our results in Louisiana, Texas and Iowa although our ability to do such public work was severely impacted by the global pandemic.
Conclusions:
Technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of the methods or techniques investigated or demonstrated, if applicable:
This is the first project to attempt to harness the power of citizen science to complement on-going efforts conducted by utilities to control lead in water exposure risks. Overall, the results confirm that there are major obstacles to helping citizens deal with their lead in water risks. Off the shelf home test kits are often inaccurate, and in the absence of a water crisis many citizens do not test their water-- even though trust in public water supplies is low nationally in the aftermath of the Flint, MI water crisis. Point-of-use filters and flushing are generally effective in reducing human health risks, but not 100% effective, and the benefits of such approaches should not be oversold. We found that private well owners have a very high vested interest in dealing with water lead problems, because they know they are completely responsible for this problem. There is promise in further developing tools to assist private well owners, refining the guidance and methods to improve their technical accuracy, with hopes of someday applying that knowledge to better helping consumers of public water supplies reduce their lead exposure. This project took a firm step in that direction by developing tools, decision-trees and predictive models.
How the research adds to the understanding of or solutions for environmental problems or is otherwise of benefit to the environment and human health:
Although our efforts must be considered preliminary, our results to date affirm the primary importance of addressing lead exposure through efforts of water utilities. Although utilities have lost trust of many consumers in the aftermath of the Washington, DC; Flint, MI and Newark, NJ water lead contamination events, consumers have a very limited ability to address such problems on their own. Most off the shelf at home test kits are highly inaccurate compared to rigorous laboratory test methods. There are also major barriers to engaging consumers who are most at risk of water lead exposure. Consequently, there is little chance of reaching a major portion of the population, without strong leadership of responsible water utilities. In contrast, consumers with private wells understand that the existing paradigm gives them complete responsibility for reducing water lead risks, and some recent research shows a disproportionate health risk to these consumers from high lead in water relative to consumers of public water supplies. Citizen science techniques should be further refined for private well owners in coordination with state outreach programs to identify and reduce these risks.
References:
Lead-in-Water Project: Crowd the Tap Storyboards and Video
Journal Articles on this Report : 4 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 56 publications | 13 publications in selected types | All 13 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Fasaee MA, Pesantez J, Pieper KJ, Ling E, Benham B, Edwards M, Berglund E. Developing early warning systems to predict water lead levels in tap water for private systems. Water Research 2022;221:118787. |
CR839375 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Pieper KJ, Pierce G, Dobbin K, Jones CN, Weiss S, Moloney K. Impacts of Regulated Water Service Extension on Water Quality, Perception, and Affordability in Orleans, NY. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2022;9(12):1068-73. |
CR839375 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Wait KD, Kriss R, Jones CN, George A, Mize W, Freeman B, Currie J, Burchell M, Parks J, Katner A, Edwards M. Addressing Emerging Contaminants in Well Water:A Perspective on the Occurrence and Sources of Hexavalent Chromium in North Carolina. Science of the Total Environment |
CR839375 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Roy S, Petrie KJ, Gamble G, Edwards MA. Did a nocebo effect contribute to the rise in special education enrollment following the Flint, Michigan water crisis? Clinical Psychology in Europe 2023;5(1). |
CR839375 (Final) |
|
Supplemental Keywords:
Lead, drinking water, corrosion, citizen science, environmental justiceProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.
Project Research Results
- 2021 Progress Report
- 2020 Progress Report
- 2019 Progress Report
- 2018 Progress Report
- Original Abstract
13 journal articles for this project