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

• Published in: Environmental research letters 2024-04, Vol.19 (4), p.44020
• 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: Article
• Language: English
• 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
• ISSN: 1748-9326; 1748-9326
• DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad2b2c

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.