Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33132676›Full record

ArticleCritical reviews in environmental science and technology2020

Field analyzers for lead quantification in drinking water samples.

Evelyne Doré, Darren A Lytle, Lauren Wasserstrom, Jeff Swertfeger, Simoni Triantafyllidou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical reviews in environmental science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

5 authors.

Evelyne DoréOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Postdoctoral fellow at Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3223-084X
Darren A LytleOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5282-4541
Lauren WasserstromGreater Cincinnati Water Works, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Jeff SwertfegerGreater Cincinnati Water Works, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Simoni TriantafyllidouOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2687-4094

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Field analyzers for the measurement of lead in drinking water samples are gaining interest from states, water utilities and building managers as rapid, inexpensive and simple tools to quantify lead concentrations. This literature review compares data quality by field analyzers to established laboratory methods and provides practical information (e.g. costs, ease-of-use) on commercial lead analyzers that are based on: (1) Electrochemistry, (2) Colorimetry and (3) Fluorescence. Between and within these three general field analyzer categories, manufacturers specify a variety of protocols to prepare the samples, which differ from the standard acidification in laboratory methods. Review of the literature raised concerns that without adequate sample preparation, field analyzers may not always fully quantify the total lead concentration, including particulate lead, thereby resulting in underestimations. Nonetheless, field analyzers have been used to quickly obtain experimental results in the laboratory, or in the field when access to laboratory equipment was limited, expensive or otherwise impractical. Field analyzers were also successfully used to detect lead from service lines, by a water utility where lead was mostly in the dissolved form. Overall, intrinsic strengths and weaknesses of field analyzers are discussed, to better balance practical convenience and adequate data quality depending on the objective.

Indexed as

anodic stripping voltammetrycolorimetryfield analyzerfluorescencelaboratory methodsLead

Identifiers

PMID33132676
PMCPMC7592708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.