ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2010
Water quality monitoring records for estimating tap water arsenic and nitrate: a validation study.
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mass-balance approach to evaluate arsenic intake and excretion in different populations.Environment international · 2022Article
- Nitrate in Drinking Water during Pregnancy and Spontaneous Preterm Birth: A Retrospective Within-Mother Analysis in California.Environmental health perspectives · 2021Article
- Well Water and Parkinson's Disease in Medicare Beneficiaries: A Nationwide Case-Control Study.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2020Article
- Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination in California's San Joaquin Valley: a cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTap water may be an important source of exposure to arsenic and nitrate. Obtaining and analyzing samples in the context of large studies of health effects can be expensive. As an alternative, studies might estimate contaminant levels in individual homes by using publicly available water quality monitoring records, either alone or in combination with geographic information systems (GIS).
methodsWe examined the validity of records-based methods in Washington State, where arsenic and nitrate contamination is prevalent but generally observed at modest levels. Laboratory analysis of samples from 107 homes (median 0.6 microg/L arsenic, median 0.4 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen) served as our "gold standard." Using Spearman's rho we compared these measures to estimates obtained using only the homes' street addresses and recent and/or historical measures from publicly monitored water sources within specified distances (radii) ranging from one half mile to 10 miles.
resultsAgreement improved as distance decreased, but the proportion of homes for which we could estimate summary measures also decreased. When including all homes, agreement was 0.05-0.24 for arsenic (8 miles), and 0.31-0.33 for nitrate (6 miles). Focusing on the closest source yielded little improvement. Agreement was greatest among homes with private wells. For homes on a water system, agreement improved considerably if we included only sources serving the relevant system (rho = 0.29 for arsenic, rho = 0.60 for nitrate).
conclusionsHistorical water quality databases show some promise for categorizing epidemiologic study participants in terms of relative tap water nitrate levels. Nonetheless, such records-based methods must be used with caution, and their use for arsenic may be limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.