Literature DB >> 27118035

Arsenic in private well water part 3 of 3: Socioeconomic vulnerability to exposure in Maine and New Jersey.

Sara V Flanagan1, Steven E Spayd2, Nicholas A Procopio3, Robert G Marvinney4, Andrew E Smith5, Steven N Chillrud6, Stuart Braman7, Yan Zheng8.   

Abstract

Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic element often concentrated in groundwater at levels unsafe for human consumption. Private well water in the United States is mostly unregulated by federal and state drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the over 13 million U.S. households regularly depending on private wells for their water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There is a consistent graded association with health outcomes at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S. Differential exposure to environmental risk may be contributing to this persistent SES-health gradient. Environmental justice advocates cite overwhelming evidence that income and other SES measures are consistently inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions including pollutants, toxins, and their impacts. Here we use private well household surveys from two states to investigate the association between SES and risks for arsenic exposure, examining the potentially cumulative effects of residential location, testing and treatment behavior, and psychological factors influencing behavior. We find that the distribution of natural arsenic hazard in the environment is socioeconomically random. There is no evidence that higher SES households are avoiding areas with arsenic or that lower SES groups are disproportionately residing in areas with arsenic. Instead, disparities in exposure arise from differing rates of protective action, primarily testing well water for arsenic, and secondly treating or avoiding contaminated water. We observe these SES disparities in behavior as well as in the psychological factors that are most favorable to these behaviors. Assessment of risk should not be limited to the spatial occurrence of arsenic alone. It is important that social vulnerability factors are incorporated into risk modeling and identifying priority areas for intervention, which should include strategies that specifically target socioeconomically vulnerable groups as well as all the conditions which cause these disparities in testing and treatment behavior.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arsenic; Disparities; Drinking water; Environmental justice; Private well; Socioeconomic status

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27118035      PMCID: PMC5204458          DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  25 in total

Review 1.  Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies.

Authors:  Nancy E Adler; Katherine Newman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 2.  Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities.

Authors:  Robert J Brulle; David N Pellow
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 21.981

3.  Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: implications for policy.

Authors:  Rachel Morello-Frosch; Miriam Zuk; Michael Jerrett; Bhavna Shamasunder; Amy D Kyle
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Arsenic in private well water part 2 of 3: Who benefits the most from traditional testing promotion?

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Steven E Spayd; Nicholas A Procopio; Steven N Chillrud; James Ross; Stuart Braman; Yan Zheng
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  Arsenic in Oregon community water systems: demography matters.

Authors:  D Stone; J Sherman; E Hofeld
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 7.963

6.  Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: Impact of the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act on household testing and mitigation behavior.

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Steven E Spayd; Nicholas A Procopio; Steven N Chillrud; Stuart Braman; Yan Zheng
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 7.  The role of cumulative risk assessment in decisions about environmental justice.

Authors:  Ken Sexton; Stephen H Linder
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 8.  The environmental "riskscape" and social inequality: implications for explaining maternal and child health disparities.

Authors:  Rachel Morello-Frosch; Edmond D Shenassa
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination in California's San Joaquin Valley: a cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems.

Authors:  Carolina L Balazs; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Alan E Hubbard; Isha Ray
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 5.984

10.  Vulnerability as a function of individual and group resources in cumulative risk assessment.

Authors:  Peter L DeFur; Gary W Evans; Elaine A Cohen Hubal; Amy D Kyle; Rachel A Morello-Frosch; David R Williams
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  20 in total

1.  Improve private well testing outreach efficiency by targeting households based on proximity to a high arsenic well.

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Nicholas A Procopio; Steven E Spayd; Jessie A Gleason; Yan Zheng
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  Health protective behavior following required arsenic testing under the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act.

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Jessie A Gleason; Steven E Spayd; Nicholas A Procopio; Megan Rockafellow-Baldoni; Stuart Braman; Steven N Chillrud; Yan Zheng
Journal:  Int J Hyg Environ Health       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 5.840

3.  Environmental racism and the need for private well protections.

Authors:  Anne E Nigra
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Assessment of inorganic contamination of private wells and demonstration of effective filter-based reduction: A pilot-study in Stokes County, North Carolina.

Authors:  Martha Scott Tomlinson; Paige Bommarito; Andrew George; Sarah Yelton; Peter Cable; Rachel Coyte; Jonathan Karr; Avner Vengosh; Kathleen M Gray; Rebecca C Fry
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 6.498

Review 5.  Lessons Learned from Arsenic Mitigation among Private Well Households.

Authors:  Yan Zheng
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2017-09

6.  Private-well stewardship among a general population based sample of private well-owners.

Authors:  Kristen M C Malecki; Amy A Schultz; Dolores J Severtson; Henry A Anderson; James A VanDerslice
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 7.963

7.  Arsenic in private well water part 2 of 3: Who benefits the most from traditional testing promotion?

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Steven E Spayd; Nicholas A Procopio; Steven N Chillrud; James Ross; Stuart Braman; Yan Zheng
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 7.963

8.  Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: Impact of the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act on household testing and mitigation behavior.

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Steven E Spayd; Nicholas A Procopio; Steven N Chillrud; Stuart Braman; Yan Zheng
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 7.963

9.  Arsenic Exposure and Melanoma Among US Adults Aged 20 or Older, 2003-2016.

Authors:  Ahmed Bedaiwi; Ashley Wysong; Eleanor G Rogan; Dillon Clarey; Christine M Arcari
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 3.117

10.  Leveraging Health Care Communication Channels for Environmental Health Outreach in New Jersey.

Authors:  Sara V Flanagan; Stuart Braman; Rose Puelle; Jessie A Gleason; Steven E Spayd; Nicholas A Procopio; Geralyn Prosswimmer; Ana Navas-Acien; Joseph Graziano; Steve Chillrud
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.