Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Developing the Chemical Health Risk Identification System (CHRIS) for Drinking Water Sources
EPA Grant Number: SU840412Title: Developing the Chemical Health Risk Identification System (CHRIS) for Drinking Water Sources
Investigators: Linden, Karl G. , Bentley, Matthew
Institution: University of Colorado Boulder
EPA Project Officer: Spatz, Kyle
Phase: I
Project Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 (Extended to December 31, 2024)
Project Amount: $25,000
RFA: 18th Annual P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2021) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Water , P3 Awards
Objective:
The Chemical Health Risk Identification System (CHRIS) project developed a freely accessible decision-support tool to help communities identify potential chemical hazards in drinking water sources. Through comprehensive literature review and database creation, the team built both computer and smartphone interfaces that generate customized contamination risk profiles and recommend appropriate treatment interventions. The tool particularly aims to empower historically disadvantaged communities by providing access to evidence-based chemical risk assessment without requiring costly environmental testing or specialized knowledge.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The Chemical Health Risk Identification System (CHRIS) tool was developed as both a fully-featured Excel VBA-based application and a proof-of-concept mobile-friendly Figma prototype for future development. Through comprehensive literature review of chemical contamination in drinking water sources, the team created a database of contaminants, their sources, associated health risks, and appropriate interventions. The literature review identified 132 papers in the pilot location (i.e., India), with 52 considered highly relevant. 72% of included studies focused on urban areas while 28% examined rural areas. Groundwater studies constituted 68% of the included studies, while surface water and rainwater constituted 29% and 3%, respectively.
The most frequently reported contaminants were fluoride, arsenic, and cadmium. The most common sources of pollution included waste dumps, wastewater discharge, power generation facilities, geogenic sources, and hospitals. Industries identified as pollution sources included pharmaceuticals, mining, food, paint, dyes, printing, textiles, pesticides, and personal care products.
The CHRIS team developed a questionnaire for the tool based on evidence from the literature review, covering categories such as geographic region, population density, water source type, and proximity to potential contamination sources. The tool successfully generates reports on potential contaminants and recommends appropriate treatment and mitigation interventions based on user inputs and literature data.
Conclusions:
A multi-criteria decision analysis led to the development of two complementary platforms: (1) a Microsoft Excel VBA version that provides more detailed analysis but requires computer access, and (2) a smartphone-based Figma prototype that increases accessibility, particularly in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) where a significantly higher proportion of the population has smartphone access compared to computer access. While the Figma prototype is not fully-featured, it represents a proof-of-concept that could be developed into a full app.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 1 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
Chemical risk assessment, drinking water contamination, appropriate technologies, decision support, sustainable development, environmental health, water treatment, environmental justiceRelevant Websites:
Mortenson Center in Global Engineering & Resilience Exit
Progress 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.