Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33799082›Full record

ArticleWater research2021

The impact of sampling approach and daily water usage on lead levels measured at the tap.

Darren A Lytle, Casey Formal, Kelly Cahalan, Christy Muhlen, Simoni Triantafyllidou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Water research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Identifying and Responding to Lead in Drinking Water in a University Setting.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Darren A LytleU.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Management Branch, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States. Electronic address: lytle.darren@epa.gov.
Casey FormalOak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Student Services Contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States.
Kelly CahalanOak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Student Services Contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States.
Christy MuhlenU.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Management Branch, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States.
Simoni TriantafyllidouU.S. Environmental Protect Agency, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Management Branch, Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency Response, Water Infrastructure Division, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are many sampling approaches available for lead (Pb) in drinking water. Selecting the best approach for its intended use is critical. The objective of this work was to compare water Pb levels collected by multiple sampling approaches from a model home plumbing system (HPS) that included an old Pb service line (LSL), as a function of daily water usage. Specifically, flushed, direct LSL, sequential profile, random daytime (RDT), first draw, and manual composite samples were compared, and daily water usage rates ranged from 1.4 to 120 gallons/day (5.3-454.2 L/day). Pb levels in water collected directly from the LSL reached equilibrium after 7-15.5 h of stagnation, and approximately 55% of the equilibrium Pb concentration was reached after 2 h. Sequential sampling accurately identified the LSL; however, the peak profile Pb concentrations were a fraction of the Pb measured directly from the LSL. Daily water usage patterns greatly impacted total Pb levels in all water sampling approaches, although manual composite and RDT samples were more sensitive to changes. Manual composite and RDT samples were equal to or greater than first draw samples throughout the study, and differences grew larger as water usage decreased.

Indexed as

Drinking WaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalLeadWaterWater QualityWater SupplyDrinking WaterLeadWaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalDrinking waterHouseLeadSamplingWater usage

Identifiers

PMID33799082
PMCPMC8132970

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.