ReviewAWWA water science
School and childcare center drinking water: Copper chemistry, health effects, occurrence, and remediation.
Review in AWWA water science. 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.
- Heavy Metals Like Aluminum, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc Polluting the Drinking Water: Their Individual Health Hazards.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Is Copper Still Safe for Us? What Do We Know and What Are the Latest Literature Statements?Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
- School and childcare center drinking water: Copper chemistry, health effects, occurrence, and remediation.AWWA water scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study goal was to better understand the risks of elevated copper levels at US schools and childcare centers. Copper health effects, chemistry, occurrence, and remediation actions were reviewed. Of the more than 98,000 schools and 500,000 childcare centers, only 0.2% had copper water testing data in the federal Safe Drinking Water Information System database. Of the facilities designated public water systems, about 13% had reported an exceedance. Schools that were not designated a public water system (PWS) also had exceedances. Few studies document levels in schools and childcare centers. Widely different sampling and remedial actions were reported. Flushing contaminated water was the most evaluated remedial action but was unreliable because copper quickly rebounded when flushing stopped. Building water treatment systems have been used, but some were not capable of making the water safe. The health risk was difficult to determine due to the limited occurrence data and lack of best management practice studies. A national drinking water testing campaign and field studies are recommended.
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.