Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33752165›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2021

Public and private tapwater: Comparative analysis of contaminant exposure and potential risk, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA.

Paul M Bradley, Denis R LeBlanc, Kristin M Romanok, Kelly L Smalling, Michael J Focazio, Mary C Cardon, Jimmy M Clark, Justin M Conley, Nicola Evans, Carrie E Givens and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Elevated PFAS Precursors in Septage and Residential Pump Stations.Environmental science & technology letters · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

22 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paul M BradleyU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, SC, USA. Electronic address: pbradley@usgs.gov.
Denis R LeBlancU.S. Geological Survey, Marlborough, MA, USA.
Kristin M RomanokU.S. Geological Survey, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Kelly L SmallingU.S. Geological Survey, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.
Michael J FocazioU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
Mary C CardonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Jimmy M ClarkU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, SC, USA.
Justin M ConleyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Nicola EvansU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Carrie E GivensU.S. Geological Survey, Lansing, MI, USA.
James L GrayU.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO, USA.
L Earl GrayU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Phillip C HartigU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Christopher P HigginsColorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA.
Michelle L HladikU.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Luke R IwanowiczU.S. Geological Survey, Kearneysville, WV, USA.
Keith A LoftinU.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS, USA.
R Blaine McCleskeyU.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, CO, USA.
Carrie A McDonoughStony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Elizabeth K Medlock-KakaleyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Christopher P WeisU.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Vickie S WilsonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
United States Geological Survey · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USColorado School of Mines · USStony Brook University · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHumans are primary drivers of environmental contamination worldwide, including in drinking-water resources. In the United States (US), federal and state agencies regulate and monitor public-supply drinking water while private-supply monitoring is rare; the current lack of directly comparable information on contaminant-mixture exposures and risks between private- and public-supplies undermines tapwater (TW) consumer decision-making.

methodsWe compared private- and public-supply residential point-of-use TW at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where both supplies share the same groundwater source. TW from 10 private- and 10 public-supply homes was analyzed for 487 organic, 38 inorganic, 8 microbial indicators, and 3 in vitro bioactivities. Concentrations were compared to existing protective health-based benchmarks, and aggregated Hazard Indices (HI) of regulated and unregulated TW contaminants were calculated along with ratios of in vitro exposure-activity cutoffs.

resultsSeventy organic and 28 inorganic constituents were detected in TW. Median detections were comparable, but median cumulative concentrations were substantially higher in public supply due to 6 chlorine-disinfected samples characterized by disinfection byproducts and corresponding lower heterotrophic plate counts. Public-supply applicable maximum contaminant (nitrate) and treatment action (lead and copper) levels were exceeded in private-supply TW samples only. Exceedances of health-based HI screening levels of concern were common to both TW supplies. DISCUSSION: These Cape Cod results indicate comparable cumulative human-health concerns from contaminant exposures in private- and public-supply TW in a shared source-water setting. Importantly, although this study's analytical coverage exceeds that currently feasible for water purveyors or homeowners, it nevertheless is a substantial underestimation of the full breadth of contaminant mixtures documented in the environment and potentially present in drinking water.

conclusionRegardless of the supply, increased public engagement in source-water protection and drinking-water treatment, including consumer point-of-use treatment, is warranted to reduce risks associated with long-term TW contaminant exposures, especially in vulnerable populations.

Indexed as

GroundwaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater PurificationEnvironmental MonitoringHumansMassachusettsUnited StatesWaterWater SupplyWaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalDisinfection byproductsHuman healthInorganicsOrganicsPrivate supplyPublic supplySole-source aquiferTapwater

Identifiers

PMID33752165
PMCPMC8268049
OpenAlexW3136569424

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.