ArticleEnvironmental research2020
Arsenic in US correctional facility drinking water, 2006-2011.
Article in Environmental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Burden of disease from contaminated drinking water in countries with high access to safely managed water: A systematic review.Water research · 2023Pooled it
- Urinary arsenic and heart disease mortality in NHANES 2003-2014.Environmental research · 2021Pooled it
- The Water Inside and Out: Drinking Water Data, Disparities, and Regulatory Distinctions Among California's Carceral and Noncarceral Water Systems.Environmental justice (Print) · 2026Article
- Disinfection Byproducts and Inorganic Contaminants in the U.S. Correctional Facility Public Water Systems.Environmental justice (Print) · 2026Article
- Public drinking water contaminant estimates for birth cohorts in the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Article
- Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Exposure Risks in US Carceral Facilities, 2022.American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience.Communications psychology · 2024Review
- Prioritizing water availability study settings to address geogenic contaminants and related societal factors.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
- Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021.Current environmental health reports · 2023Article
- Bibliometric analysis of the association between drinking water pollution and bladder cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Nationwide geospatial analysis of county racial and ethnic composition and public drinking water arsenic and uranium.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Socioeconomic vulnerability and public water arsenic concentrations across the US.Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) · 2022Article
- The Human Right to Water: A 20-Year Comparative Analysis of Arsenic in Rural and Carceral Drinking Water Systems in California.Environmental health perspectives · 2022Article
- Sociodemographic inequalities in uranium and other metals in community water systems across the USA, 2006-11: a cross-sectional study.The Lancet. Planetary health · 2022Article
- Inequalities in Public Water Arsenic Concentrations in Counties and Community Water Systems across the United States, 2006-2011.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the quality of drinking water in US correctional facilities (e.g. detention centers, prisons, jails, etc.). Our objective was to determine if incarcerated persons are at risk for chronic, elevated arsenic exposure relative to the non-incarcerated US population, particularly in the Southwestern US where public water and groundwater arsenic concentrations are high compared to the rest of the US.
methodsWe analyzed 230,158 arsenic monitoring records from 37,086 community water systems (CWSs) from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Third Six Year Review of Contaminant Occurrence dataset (covering 2006-2011). We compared six-year average arsenic concentrations and the odds of exceeding the EPA's 10 μg/L maximum contaminant level (MCL) for CWSs exclusively serving correctional facilities versus all other CWSs in the Southwestern US, where groundwater arsenic concentrations are high.
resultsAverage six-year water arsenic concentrations were higher for Southwestern correctional facility CWSs (6.41 μg/L, 95% CI 3.48, 9.34) compared to all other Southwestern CWSs (3.11 μg/L, 95% CI 2.97, 3.24) and to other CWSs across the rest of the US (1.39 μg/L, 95% CI 1.35, 1.42). In the Southwest, 26.1% (N = 6) of correctional facility CWSs versus 5.8% (509) of other CWSs reported six-year arsenic averages exceeding 10 μg/L, corresponding to an odds ratio of 5.70 (95% confidence interval 2.24, 14.52). Correctional facility CWSs in the Southwest were also more likely to report six-year averages exceeding 5 μg/L (the MCL for New Jersey and New Hampshire, N = 8, odds ratio 2.77, 95% CI 1.17, 6.54). DISCUSSION: Persons incarcerated in the Southwestern US were at disproportionate risk of elevated drinking water arsenic exposure and related disease from 2006 to 2011. Strict enforcement of EPA regulations and additional technical and financial support for CWSs serving correctional facilities in the Southwest is necessary to protect the health and human rights of incarcerated persons.
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.