Barrett Welch1, Ellen Smit2, Andres Cardenas3, Perry Hystad2, Molly L Kile2. 1. School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Electronic address: welchba@oregonstate.edu. 2. School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 3. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2001, the United States revised the arsenic maximum contaminant level for public drinking water systems from 50µg/L to 10µg/L. This study aimed to examine temporal trends in urinary arsenic concentrations in the U.S. population from 2003 to 2014 by drinking water source among individuals aged 12 years and older who had no detectable arsenobetaine - a biomarker of arsenic exposure from seafood intake. METHODS: We examined data from 6 consecutive cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2014; N=5848). Total urinary arsenic (TUA) was calculated by subtracting arsenobetaine's limit of detection and detectable arsenocholine from total arsenic. Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted using a second total urinary arsenic index (TUA2, calculated by adding arsenite, arsenate, monomethylarsonic acid, dimethylarsinic acid). We classified drinking water source using 24-h dietary questionnaire data as community supply (n=3427), well or rain cistern (n=506), and did not drink tap water (n=1060). RESULTS: Geometric means (GM) of survey cycles were calculated from multivariate regression models adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, BMI, income, creatinine, water source, type of water consumed, recent smoking, and consumption of seafood, rice, poultry, and juice. Compared to 2003-2004, adjusted TUA was 35.5% lower in 2013-2014 among the general U.S. POPULATION: Stratified analysis by smoking status indicated that the trend in lower TUA was only consistent among non-smokers. Compared to 2003-2004, lower adjusted TUA was observed in 2013-2014 among non-smoking participants who used community water supplies (1.98 vs 1.16µg/L, p<0.001), well or rain cistern users (1.54 vs 1.28µg/L, p<0.001) and who did not drink tap water (2.24 vs 1.53µg/L, p<0.001). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results for participants who used a community water supplier and to a lesser extent those who did not drink tap water. However, the sensitivity analysis showed overall exposure stayed the same or was higher among well or rain cistern users. Finally, the greatest decrease in TUA was among participants within the highest exposure percentiles (e.g. 95th percentile had 34% lower TUA in 2013/2014 vs 2003/2004, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, urinary arsenic levels in the U.S. population declined over a 12-year period that encompassed the adoption of the revised Arsenic Rule. The most consistent trends in declining exposure were observed among non-smoking individuals using public community water systems. These results suggest regulation and prevention strategies to reduce arsenic exposures in the U.S. may be succeeding.
BACKGROUND: In 2001, the United States revised the arsenic maximum contaminant level for public drinking water systems from 50µg/L to 10µg/L. This study aimed to examine temporal trends in urinary arsenic concentrations in the U.S. population from 2003 to 2014 by drinking water source among individuals aged 12 years and older who had no detectable arsenobetaine - a biomarker of arsenic exposure from seafood intake. METHODS: We examined data from 6 consecutive cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2014; N=5848). Total urinary arsenic (TUA) was calculated by subtracting arsenobetaine's limit of detection and detectable arsenocholine from total arsenic. Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted using a second total urinary arsenic index (TUA2, calculated by adding arsenite, arsenate, monomethylarsonic acid, dimethylarsinic acid). We classified drinking water source using 24-h dietary questionnaire data as community supply (n=3427), well or rain cistern (n=506), and did not drink tapwater (n=1060). RESULTS: Geometric means (GM) of survey cycles were calculated from multivariate regression models adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, BMI, income, creatinine, water source, type of water consumed, recent smoking, and consumption of seafood, rice, poultry, and juice. Compared to 2003-2004, adjusted TUA was 35.5% lower in 2013-2014 among the general U.S. POPULATION: Stratified analysis by smoking status indicated that the trend in lower TUA was only consistent among non-smokers. Compared to 2003-2004, lower adjusted TUA was observed in 2013-2014 among non-smoking participants who used community water supplies (1.98 vs 1.16µg/L, p<0.001), well or rain cistern users (1.54 vs 1.28µg/L, p<0.001) and who did not drink tapwater (2.24 vs 1.53µg/L, p<0.001). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results for participants who used a community water supplier and to a lesser extent those who did not drink tapwater. However, the sensitivity analysis showed overall exposure stayed the same or was higher among well or rain cistern users. Finally, the greatest decrease in TUA was among participants within the highest exposure percentiles (e.g. 95th percentile had 34% lower TUA in 2013/2014 vs 2003/2004, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, urinary arsenic levels in the U.S. population declined over a 12-year period that encompassed the adoption of the revised Arsenic Rule. The most consistent trends in declining exposure were observed among non-smoking individuals using public community water systems. These results suggest regulation and prevention strategies to reduce arsenic exposures in the U.S. may be succeeding.
Authors: Dana B Barr; Lynn C Wilder; Samuel P Caudill; Amanda J Gonzalez; Lance L Needham; James L Pirkle Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Madhavi Mantha; Edward Yeary; John Trent; Patricia A Creed; Kevin Kubachka; Traci Hanley; Nohora Shockey; Douglas Heitkemper; Joseph Caruso; Jianping Xue; Glenn Rice; Larry Wymer; John T Creed Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Anne E Nigra; Tiffany R Sanchez; Keeve E Nachman; David Harvey; Steven N Chillrud; Joseph H Graziano; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2017-11
Authors: Matthew A Davis; Todd A Mackenzie; Kathryn L Cottingham; Diane Gilbert-Diamond; Tracy Punshon; Margaret R Karagas Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Anne E Nigra; Pablo Olmedo; Maria Grau-Perez; Rae O'Leary; Marcia O'Leary; Amanda M Fretts; Jason G Umans; Lyle G Best; Kevin A Francesconi; Walter Goessler; Shelley A Cole; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Stephanie A Foster; Michael J Pennino; Jana E Compton; Scott G Leibowitz; Molly L Kile Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Maya Spaur; Melissa A Lombard; Joseph D Ayotte; David E Harvey; Benjamin C Bostick; Steven N Chillrud; Ana Navas-Acien; Anne E Nigra Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 10.753
Authors: Keeve E Nachman; Tracy Punshon; Laurie Rardin; Antonio J Signes-Pastor; Carolyn J Murray; Brian P Jackson; Mary Lou Guerinot; Thomas A Burke; Celia Y Chen; Habibul Ahsan; Maria Argos; Kathryn L Cottingham; Francesco Cubadda; Gary L Ginsberg; Britton C Goodale; Margaret Kurzius-Spencer; Andrew A Meharg; Mark D Miller; Anne E Nigra; Claire B Pendergrast; Andrea Raab; Ken Reimer; Kirk G Scheckel; Tanja Schwerdtle; Vivien F Taylor; Erik J Tokar; Todd M Warczak; Margaret R Karagas Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Anne E Nigra; Qixuan Chen; Steven N Chillrud; Lili Wang; David Harvey; Brian Mailloux; Pam Factor-Litvak; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 9.031