Comparing in-home and bottled drinking water quality: regulated and emerging contaminants in rural Central Appalachia.

IF 2.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Journal of water and health Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-03 DOI:10.2166/wh.2025.073
Kate Albi, Leigh-Anne Krometis, Erin Ling, Alasdair Cohen, Kang Xia, Austin Gray, Emerald Dudzinski, Kimberly Ellis
{"title":"Comparing in-home and bottled drinking water quality: regulated and emerging contaminants in rural Central Appalachia.","authors":"Kate Albi, Leigh-Anne Krometis, Erin Ling, Alasdair Cohen, Kang Xia, Austin Gray, Emerald Dudzinski, Kimberly Ellis","doi":"10.2166/wh.2025.073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An increasing number of Americans rely on bottled water for household use, citing perceptions of poor in-home water quality and/or distrust of public water utilities. We analyzed in-home (<i>n</i> = 23), roadside spring (<i>n</i> = 4), and bottled drinking water (<i>n</i> = 36) in Central Appalachia. All samples were analyzed for regulated (bacteria, inorganic ions) and emerging (PFAS, microplastics) contaminants. Study survey results indicated the majority (83%) of participants viewed their in-home water quality as satisfactory or poor due to negative organoleptic perceptions. Coliform bacteria and sodium levels exceeding recommended levels were detected in 52% of home water samples, though detections varied by source, i.e., high sodium was more often observed in municipal water, while bacteria were more often observed in private system water. Bottled water samples did not exceed any regulations, though median microplastic concentrations were statistically higher (<i>p</i> = 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) than those recovered from in-home samples. PFAS compounds were detected in some in-home and bottled water samples at very low levels. While in general bottled water appears to be a safe drinking water source in these areas, the associated costs in time and money for lower-income households are considerable, and were estimated by participants as $68-400/month.</p>","PeriodicalId":17436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of water and health","volume":"23 9","pages":"1078-1094"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of water and health","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2025.073","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An increasing number of Americans rely on bottled water for household use, citing perceptions of poor in-home water quality and/or distrust of public water utilities. We analyzed in-home (n = 23), roadside spring (n = 4), and bottled drinking water (n = 36) in Central Appalachia. All samples were analyzed for regulated (bacteria, inorganic ions) and emerging (PFAS, microplastics) contaminants. Study survey results indicated the majority (83%) of participants viewed their in-home water quality as satisfactory or poor due to negative organoleptic perceptions. Coliform bacteria and sodium levels exceeding recommended levels were detected in 52% of home water samples, though detections varied by source, i.e., high sodium was more often observed in municipal water, while bacteria were more often observed in private system water. Bottled water samples did not exceed any regulations, though median microplastic concentrations were statistically higher (p = 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) than those recovered from in-home samples. PFAS compounds were detected in some in-home and bottled water samples at very low levels. While in general bottled water appears to be a safe drinking water source in these areas, the associated costs in time and money for lower-income households are considerable, and were estimated by participants as $68-400/month.

比较家庭和瓶装饮用水质量:阿巴拉契亚中部农村地区受管制和新出现的污染物。
越来越多的美国人依赖瓶装水作为家庭用水,理由是家庭水质差和/或不信任公共供水设施。我们分析了阿巴拉契亚中部地区的家庭饮用水(n = 23)、路边泉水(n = 4)和瓶装饮用水(n = 36)。对所有样品进行了受控(细菌,无机离子)和新兴(PFAS,微塑料)污染物的分析。研究调查结果表明,大多数(83%)的参与者认为,由于负面的感官感知,他们的家庭水质令人满意或较差。在52%的家庭水样中检测到大肠菌群细菌和钠含量超过建议水平,尽管检测结果因来源而异,即在市政用水中更常观察到高钠,而在私人系统用水中更常观察到细菌。瓶装水样品没有超过任何规定,尽管中位微塑料浓度在统计上高于从家庭样品中回收的微塑料浓度(p = 0.001, Wilcoxon秩和检验)。在一些家用和瓶装水样品中检测到PFAS化合物的含量非常低。虽然在这些地区,瓶装水似乎是一种安全的饮用水源,但对低收入家庭来说,相关的时间和金钱成本相当大,据参与者估计,每月为68-400美元。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of water and health
Journal of water and health 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Water and Health is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of information on the health implications and control of waterborne microorganisms and chemical substances in the broadest sense for developing and developed countries worldwide. This is to include microbial toxins, chemical quality and the aesthetic qualities of water.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信