Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27118035›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2016

Arsenic in private well water part 3 of 3: Socioeconomic vulnerability to exposure in Maine and New Jersey.

Sara V Flanagan, Steven E Spayd, Nicholas A Procopio, Robert G Marvinney, Andrew E Smith, Steven N Chillrud, Stuart Braman, Yan Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Environmental racism and the need for private well protections.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sara V FlanaganColumbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA; Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, 55 W 125th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420, USA. Electronic address: Flanagan@ldeo.columbia.edu.
Steven E SpaydNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420, USA. Electronic address: Steve.Spayd@dep.nj.gov.
Nicholas A ProcopioNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420, USA. Electronic address: Nick.Procopio@dep.nj.gov.
Robert G MarvinneyMaine Geological Survey, 93 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, USA. Electronic address: Robert.G.Marvinney@maine.gov.
Andrew E SmithMaine Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 286 Water Street, Augusta, ME 04333, USA. Electronic address: Andy.E.Smith@maine.gov.
Steven N ChillrudColumbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA. Electronic address: Chilli@ldeo.columbia.edu.
Stuart BramanColumbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA. Electronic address: SBraman@ldeo.columbia.edu.
Yan ZhengColumbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA; Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, 55 W 125th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA; Queens College, City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, NY 11367, USA. Electronic address: YZheng@ldeo.columbia.edu.

Funding

Training CoreP42ES010349 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI NAVAS-ACIEN, ANA · 2000 to 2020
$53.6M
True Metal fac coreP30ES009089 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MATTHEW S PERZANOWSKI · 1998 to 2026
$44.7M
THE NEW JERSEY DEPT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES' PLAN FOR CONTINUING NETWORKU38EH000948 · EH · NEW JERSEY STATE DEPT/HEALTH/SENIOR SRVS · PI GOUN, BARBARA D · 2011 to 2015
$3.8M
NCEH CDC HHS U38 EH000948NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES009089NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES010349
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic element often concentrated in groundwater at levels unsafe for human consumption. Private well water in the United States is mostly unregulated by federal and state drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the over 13 million U.S. households regularly depending on private wells for their water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There is a consistent graded association with health outcomes at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S. Differential exposure to environmental risk may be contributing to this persistent SES-health gradient. Environmental justice advocates cite overwhelming evidence that income and other SES measures are consistently inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions including pollutants, toxins, and their impacts. Here we use private well household surveys from two states to investigate the association between SES and risks for arsenic exposure, examining the potentially cumulative effects of residential location, testing and treatment behavior, and psychological factors influencing behavior. We find that the distribution of natural arsenic hazard in the environment is socioeconomically random. There is no evidence that higher SES households are avoiding areas with arsenic or that lower SES groups are disproportionately residing in areas with arsenic. Instead, disparities in exposure arise from differing rates of protective action, primarily testing well water for arsenic, and secondly treating or avoiding contaminated water. We observe these SES disparities in behavior as well as in the psychological factors that are most favorable to these behaviors. Assessment of risk should not be limited to the spatial occurrence of arsenic alone. It is important that social vulnerability factors are incorporated into risk modeling and identifying priority areas for intervention, which should include strategies that specifically target socioeconomically vulnerable groups as well as all the conditions which cause these disparities in testing and treatment behavior.

Indexed as

Social ClassArsenicEnvironmental ExposureGroundwaterHumansMaineNew JerseyRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater PollutionWater WellsArsenicWater Pollutants, ChemicalArsenicDisparitiesDrinking waterEnvironmental justicePrivate wellSocioeconomic status

Identifiers

PMID27118035
PMCPMC5204458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.