Literature DB >> 32192969

Patterns and predictions of drinking water nitrate violations across the conterminous United States.

Michael J Pennino1, Scott G Leibowitz2, Jana E Compton2, Ryan A Hill2, Robert D Sabo3.   

Abstract

Excess nitrate in drinking water is a human health concern, especially for young children. Public drinking water systems in violation of the 10 mg nitrate-N/L maximum contaminant level (MCL) must be reported in EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). We used SDWIS data with random forest modeling to examine the drivers of nitrate violations across the conterminous U.S. and to predict where public water systems are at risk of exceeding the nitrate MCL. As explanatory variables, we used land cover, nitrogen inputs, soil/hydrogeology, and climate variables. While we looked at the role of nitrate treatment in separate analyses, we did not include treatment as a factor in the final models, due to incomplete information in SDWIS. For groundwater (GW) systems, a classification model correctly classified 79% of catchments in violation and a regression model explained 43% of the variation in nitrate concentrations above the MCL. The most important variables in the GW classification model were % cropland, agricultural drainage, irrigation-to-precipitation ratio, nitrogen surplus, and surplus precipitation. Regions predicted to have risk for nitrate violations in GW were the Central California Valley, parts of Washington, Idaho, the Great Plains, Piedmont of Pennsylvania and Coastal Plains of Delaware, and regions of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. For surface water (SW) systems, a classification model correctly classified 90% of catchments and a regression model explained 52% of the variation in nitrate concentration. The variables most important for the SW classification model were largely hydroclimatic variables including surplus precipitation, irrigation-to-precipitation ratio, and % shrubland. Areas at greatest risk for SW nitrate violations were generally in the non-mountainous west and southwest. Identifying the areas with possible risk for future violations and potential drivers of nitrate violations across U.S. can inform decisions on how source water protection and other management options could best protect drinking water.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Drinking water; Groundwater; Nitrate; Random forest modeling; Risk; Surface water

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32192969      PMCID: PMC8204728          DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137661

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


  27 in total

1.  Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the conterminous United States.

Authors:  Bernard T Nolan; Kerie J Hitt; Barbara C Ruddy
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2002-05-15       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Using spatially explicit indicators to investigate watershed characteristics and stream temperature relationships.

Authors:  Zbigniew J Grabowski; Eric Watson; Heejun Chang
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-02-13       Impact factor: 7.963

3.  How Misapplication of the Hydrologic Unit Framework Diminishes the Meaning of Watersheds.

Authors:  James M Omernik; Glenn E Griffith; Robert M Hughes; James B Glover; Marc H Weber
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Modeling nitrate at domestic and public-supply well depths in the Central Valley, California.

Authors:  Bernard T Nolan; JoAnn M Gronberg; Claudia C Faunt; Sandra M Eberts; Ken Belitz
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  The importance of lake-specific characteristics for water quality across the continental United States.

Authors:  Emily K Read; Vijay P Patil; Samantha K Oliver; Amy L Hetherington; Jennifer A Brentrup; Jacob A Zwart; Kirsten M Winters; Jessica R Corman; Emily R Nodine; R Iestyn Woolway; Hilary A Dugan; Aline Jaimes; Arianto B Santoso; Grace S Hong; Luke A Winslow; Paul C Hanson; Kathleen C Weathers
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.657

6.  Mapping watershed integrity for the conterminous United States.

Authors:  Darren J Thornbrugh; Scott G Leibowitz; Ryan A Hill; Marc H Weber; Zachary C Johnson; Anthony R Olsen; Joseph E Flotemersch; John L Stoddard; David V Peck
Journal:  Ecol Indic       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.958

7.  Nitrogen inputs drive nitrogen concentrations in U.S. streams and rivers during summer low flow conditions.

Authors:  R A Bellmore; J E Compton; J R Brooks; E W Fox; R A Hill; D J Sobota; D J Thornbrugh; M H Weber
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-05-26       Impact factor: 7.963

8.  High Nitrate Concentrations in Some Midwest United States Streams in 2013 after the 2012 Drought.

Authors:  Peter C Van Metre; Jeffrey W Frey; MaryLynn Musgrove; Naomi Nakagaki; Sharon Qi; Barbara J Mahler; Michael E Wieczorek; Daniel T Button
Journal:  J Environ Qual       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.751

9.  Modeling groundwater nitrate concentrations in private wells in Iowa.

Authors:  David C Wheeler; Bernard T Nolan; Abigail R Flory; Curt T DellaValle; Mary H Ward
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 7.963

10.  Varying sensitivity of mountainous streamwater base-flow [Formula: see text]concentrations to N deposition in the northern suburbs of Tokyo.

Authors:  Kazuya Nishina; Mirai Watanabe; Masami K Koshikawa; Takejiro Takamatsu; Yu Morino; Tatsuya Nagashima; Kunika Soma; Seiji Hayashi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  5 in total

1.  Deep soil nitrogen storage slows nitrate leaching through the vadose zone.

Authors:  Julie N Weitzman; J Renée Brooks; Jana E Compton; Barton R Faulkner; Paul M Mayer; Ronald E Peachey; William D Rugh; Robert A Coulombe; Blake Hatteberg; Stephen R Hutchins
Journal:  Agric Ecosyst Environ       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 6.576

2.  Examining Relationships Between Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations in Drinking Water and Landscape Characteristics to Understand Health Risks.

Authors:  Q F Hamlin; S L Martin; A D Kendall; D W Hyndman
Journal:  Geohealth       Date:  2022-05-01

3.  Coupling the dual isotopes of water (δ2H and δ18O) and nitrate (δ15N and δ18O): A new framework for classifying current and legacy groundwater pollution.

Authors:  Julie N Weitzman; J Renée Brooks; Paul M Mayer; William D Rugh; Jana E Compton
Journal:  Environ Res Lett       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 6.793

4.  Nitrogen legacies in anthropogenic landscapes: a case study in the Mondego Basin in Portugal.

Authors:  João Marques; Joy Liu; Maria C Cunha; Kimberly J Van Meter; Nandita B Basu
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Nitrogen inputs best predict farm field nitrate leaching in the Willamette Valley, Oregon.

Authors:  J E Compton; S L Pearlstein; L Erban; R A Coulombe; B Hatteberg; A Henning; J R Brooks; J E Selker
Journal:  Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 3.270

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.