Yan Zheng1,2. 1. School of Environmental Science and Engineering and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Control, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China. yzheng@ldeo.columbia.edu. 2. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY, 10964, USA. yzheng@ldeo.columbia.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many thousands of research papers have been published on the occurrence, health effects, and mitigation of arsenic in drinking water sourced from groundwater around the world. Here, an attempt is made to summarize this large body of knowledge into a small number of lessons. RECENT FINDINGS: This is an opinion paper reflecting on why we are far from the goal of eliminating this silent and widespread poison to protect the health of many millions. The lessons are drawn from research in countries representing a range of economic development and cultural contexts. The replacement of household wells with centralized water supplies has reduced population level exposure to moderate (50-100 μg/L) and high (>100 μg/L) levels of arsenic in drinking water in some countries as they become wealthier. However, there remains a very large rural population in all countries where the exposure to low levels (10-50 μg/L) of arsenic continues due to its dispersed occurrence in the environment and frequent reliance on private well. A set of natural (geological and biological), socioeconomic, and behavioral barriers to progress are summarized as lessons. They range from challenges in identifying the exposed households due to spatially heterogeneous arsenic distribution in groundwater, difficulties in quantifying the exposure let alone reducing the exposure, failures in maintaining compliance to arsenic drinking water standards, to misplaced risk perceptions and environmental justice issues. Environmental health professionals have an ethical obligation to help As mitigation among private well water households, along with physicians, hydrogeologists, water treatment specialists, community organizations, and government.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many thousands of research papers have been published on the occurrence, health effects, and mitigation of arsenic in drinking water sourced from groundwater around the world. Here, an attempt is made to summarize this large body of knowledge into a small number of lessons. RECENT FINDINGS: This is an opinion paper reflecting on why we are far from the goal of eliminating this silent and widespread poison to protect the health of many millions. The lessons are drawn from research in countries representing a range of economic development and cultural contexts. The replacement of household wells with centralized water supplies has reduced population level exposure to moderate (50-100 μg/L) and high (>100 μg/L) levels of arsenic in drinking water in some countries as they become wealthier. However, there remains a very large rural population in all countries where the exposure to low levels (10-50 μg/L) of arsenic continues due to its dispersed occurrence in the environment and frequent reliance on private well. A set of natural (geological and biological), socioeconomic, and behavioral barriers to progress are summarized as lessons. They range from challenges in identifying the exposed households due to spatially heterogeneous arsenic distribution in groundwater, difficulties in quantifying the exposure let alone reducing the exposure, failures in maintaining compliance to arsenicdrinking water standards, to misplaced risk perceptions and environmental justice issues. Environmental health professionals have an ethical obligation to help As mitigation among private well water households, along with physicians, hydrogeologists, water treatment specialists, community organizations, and government.
Authors: Sunbaek Bang; Maria E Pena; Manish Patel; Lee Lippincott; Xiaoguang Meng; Kyoung-Woong Kim Journal: Environ Geochem Health Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 4.609
Authors: Yan Yuan; Guillermo Marshall; Catterina Ferreccio; Craig Steinmaus; Steve Selvin; Jane Liaw; Michael N Bates; Allan H Smith Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Qiang Yang; Hun Bok Jung; Charles W Culbertson; Robert G Marvinney; Marc C Loiselle; Daniel B Locke; Heidi Cheek; Hilary Thibodeau; Yan Zheng Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: K A Radloff; Y Zheng; H A Michael; M Stute; B C Bostick; I Mihajlov; M Bounds; M R Huq; I Choudhury; M W Rahman; P Schlosser; K M Ahmed; A van Geen Journal: Nat Geosci Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 16.908
Authors: Yu Chen; Alexander van Geen; Joseph H Graziano; Alexander Pfaff; Malgosia Madajewicz; Faruque Parvez; A Z M Iftekhar Hussain; Vesna Slavkovich; Tariqul Islam; Habibul Ahsan Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2007-02-05 Impact factor: 9.031
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
Authors: Veronica L Irvin; Diana Rohlman; Amelia Vaughan; Rebecca Amantia; Claire Berlin; Molly L Kile Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390