ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2024
Repeated home drinking water sampling to improve detection of particulate lead spikes: a simulation study.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLead can be present in drinking water in soluble and particulate forms. The intermittent release of lead particulates in drinking water can produce highly variable water lead levels (WLLs) in individual homes, a health concern because both particulate and soluble lead are bioavailable. More frequent water sampling would increase the likelihood of identifying sporadic lead "spikes," though little information is available to aid in estimating how many samples are needed to achieve a given degree of sensitivity to spike detection.
objectiveTo estimate the number of rounds of tap water sampling needed to determine with a given level of confidence that an individual household is at low risk for the intermittent release of lead particulates.
methodsWe simulated WLLs for 100,000 homes on 15 rounds of sampling under a variety of assumptions about lead spike release. A Markovian structure was used to describe WLLs for individual homes on subsequent rounds of sampling given a set of transitional probabilities, in which homes with higher WLLs at baseline were more likely to exhibit a spike on repeated sampling.
resultsAssuming 2% of homes had a spike on the first round of sampling and a mid-range estimate of transitional probabilities, the initial round of sampling had a 6.4% sensitivity to detect a spike. Seven rounds of sampling would be needed to increase the sensitivity to 50%, which would leave unrecognized the more than 15,000 homes that intermittently exhibit spikes. SIGNIFICANCE: For assessing household risk for lead exposure through drinking water, multiple rounds of water sampling are needed to detect the infrequent but high spikes in WLLs due to particulate release. Water sampling procedures for assessment of lead exposure in individual homes should be modified to account for the infrequent but high spikes in WLL. IMPACT: It has been known for decades that intermittent "spikes" in water lead occur due to the sporadic release of lead particulates. However, conventional water sampling strategies do not account for these infrequent but hazardous events. This research suggests that current approaches to sampling tap water for lead testing identify only a small fraction of homes in which particulate spikes occur, and that sampling procedures should be changed substantially to increase the probability of identifying the hazard of particulate lead release into drinking water.
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.