Literature DB >> 29704756

Sampling in schools and large institutional buildings: Implications for regulations, exposure and management of lead and copper.

Evelyne Doré1, Elise Deshommes2, Robert C Andrews3, Shokoufeh Nour2, Michèle Prévost2.   

Abstract

Legacy lead and copper components are ubiquitous in plumbing of large buildings including schools that serve children most vulnerable to lead exposure. Lead and copper samples must be collected after varying stagnation times and interpreted in reference to different thresholds. A total of 130 outlets (fountains, bathroom and kitchen taps) were sampled for dissolved and particulate lead as well as copper. Sampling was conducted at 8 schools and 3 institutional (non-residential) buildings served by municipal water of varying corrosivity, with and without corrosion control (CC), and without a lead service line. Samples included first draw following overnight stagnation (>8h), partial (30 s) and fully (5 min) flushed, and first draw after 30 min of stagnation. Total lead concentrations in first draw samples after overnight stagnation varied widely from 0.07 to 19.9 μg Pb/L (median: 1.7 μg Pb/L) for large buildings served with non-corrosive water. Higher concentrations were observed in schools with corrosive water without CC (0.9-201 μg Pb/L, median: 14.3 μg Pb/L), while levels in schools with CC ranged from 0.2 to 45.1 μg Pb/L (median: 2.1 μg Pb/L). Partial flushing (30 s) and full flushing (5 min) reduced concentrations by 88% and 92% respectively for corrosive waters without CC. Lead concentrations were <10 μg Pb/L in all samples following 5 min of flushing. However, after only 30 min of stagnation, first draw concentrations increased back to >45% than values in 1st draw samples collected after overnight stagnation. Concentrations of particulate Pb varied widely (≥0.02-846 μg Pb/L) and was found to be the cause of very high total Pb concentrations in the 2% of samples exceeding 50 μg Pb/L. Pb levels across outlets within the same building varied widely (up to 1000X) especially in corrosive water (0.85-851 μg Pb/L after 30MS) confirming the need to sample at each outlet to identify high risk taps. Based on the much higher concentrations observed in first draw samples, even after a short stagnation, the first 250mL should be discarded unless no sources of lead are present. Results question the cost-benefit of daily or weekly flushing as a remediation strategy. As such, current regulatory requirements may fail to protect children as they may not identify problematic taps and effective mitigation measures.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Copper; Drinking water; Large building; Lead; Sampling; School

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29704756     DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Water Res        ISSN: 0043-1354            Impact factor:   11.236


  9 in total

1.  Field analyzers for lead quantification in drinking water samples.

Authors:  Evelyne Doré; Darren A Lytle; Lauren Wasserstrom; Jeff Swertfeger; Simoni Triantafyllidou
Journal:  Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 12.561

2.  Lead Concentrations in US School Drinking Water: Testing Programs, Prevalence, and Policy Opportunities, 2016‒2018.

Authors:  Angie L Cradock; Jessica L Barrett; Mary Kathryn Poole; Chasmine N Flax; Laura Vollmer; Christina Hecht
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 11.561

Review 3.  School and childcare center drinking water: Copper chemistry, health effects, occurrence, and remediation.

Authors:  Elizabeth Montagnino; Darren A Lytle; Joan Rose; David Cwiertny; Andrew J Whelton
Journal:  AWWA Water Sci       Date:  2022-03-17

4.  The impact of sampling approach and daily water usage on lead levels measured at the tap.

Authors:  Darren A Lytle; Casey Formal; Kelly Cahalan; Christy Muhlen; Simoni Triantafyllidou
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 13.400

5.  Pre- and post-flushing of three schools in Arizona due to COVID-19 shutdown.

Authors:  Rain Richard; Treavor H Boyer
Journal:  AWWA Water Sci       Date:  2021-09-02

6.  Preliminary Study of Lead-Contaminated Drinking Water in Public Parks-An Assessment of Equity and Exposure Risks in Two Texas Communities.

Authors:  Leanne Fawkes; Garett Sansom
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Associations of Community Water Lead Concentrations with Hemoglobin Concentrations and Erythropoietin-Stimulating Agent Use among Patients with Advanced CKD.

Authors:  John Danziger; Kenneth J Mukamal; Eric Weinhandl
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 14.978

8.  Effectiveness of Prevailing Flush Guidelines to Prevent Exposure to Lead in Tap Water.

Authors:  Adrienne Katner; Kelsey Pieper; Komal Brown; Hui-Yi Lin; Jeffrey Parks; Xinnan Wang; Chih-Yang Hu; Sheldon Masters; Howard Mielke; Marc Edwards
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 9.  Variability and sampling of lead (Pb) in drinking water: Assessing potential human exposure depends on the sampling protocol.

Authors:  Simoni Triantafyllidou; Jonathan Burkhardt; Jennifer Tully; Kelly Cahalan; Michael DeSantis; Darren Lytle; Michael Schock
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 9.621

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.