ArticleGround water2021
Recommended Sampling Intervals for Arsenic in Private Wells.
Article in Ground water, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment and management of arsenic contamination in groundwater from Sanso, Ghana: Health risk implications, source identification, adsorption and immobilization for safe disposal.Toxicology reports · 2025Article
- Naturally occurring metals in unregulated domestic wells in Nevada, USA.The Science of the total environment · 2022Article
- Arsenic Exposure in Well Water From the Perspective of Patients and Providers.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Geogenic arsenic in drinking water is a worldwide problem. For private well owners, testing (e.g., private or government laboratory) is the main method to determine arsenic concentration. However, the temporal variability of arsenic concentrations is not well characterized and it is not clear how often private wells should be tested. To answer this question, three datasets, two new and one publicly available, with temporal arsenic data were utilized: 6370 private wells from New Jersey tested at least twice since 2002, 2174 wells from the USGS NAWQA database, and 391 private wells sampled 14 years apart from Bangladesh. Two arsenic drinking water standards are used for the analysis: 10 µg/L, the WHO guideline and EPA standard or maximum contaminant level (MCL) and 5 µg/L, the New Jersey MCL. A rate of change was determined for each well and these rates were used to predict the temporal change in arsenic for a range of initial arsenic concentrations below an MCL. For each MCL and initial concentration, the probability of exceeding an MCL over time was predicted. Results show that to limit a person to below a 5% chance of drinking water above an MCL, wells that are ½ an MCL and above should be tested every year and wells below ½ an MCL should be tested every 5 years. These results indicate that one test result below an MCL is inadequate to ensure long-term compliance. Future recommendations should account for temporal variability when creating drinking water standards and guidance for private well owners.
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.