Respectively, University of Nevada, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, MS 370, FA 132, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, Nevada 89557–0013; and (Shaw and Benson) Texas A&M University, Departments of Agricultural Economics and Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Science, 2124 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843–2124 (E-Mail/Walker: email@example.com).
ARSENIC CONSUMPTION AND HEALTH RISK PERCEPTIONS IN A RURAL WESTERN U.S. AREA1
Article first published online: 8 JUN 2007
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Volume 42, Issue 5, pages 1363–1370, October 2006
How to Cite
Walker, M., Shaw, W. D. and Benson, M. (2006), ARSENIC CONSUMPTION AND HEALTH RISK PERCEPTIONS IN A RURAL WESTERN U.S. AREA. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42: 1363–1370. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb05306.x
Paper No. 05116 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA)
- Issue published online: 8 JUN 2007
- Article first published online: 8 JUN 2007
- public health;
- water quality;
- drinking water;
ABSTRACT: Churchill County, Nevada, has approximately 23,000 residents, among whom an estimated 13,500 relied on private wells for water supply in 2002. This study examined exposure to arsenic in water supplies among residents with private domestic wells and factors related to householder choice to consume tap water. It compared opinions and concerns about water quality with consumption habits and observed concentrations from tap water samples. The results from 351 households indicated that a majority (75 percent) of respondents consumed tap water and that a minority (38 percent) applied treatment. Approximately 66 percent of those who consumed tap water were exposed to concentrations of arsenic that exceeded 10 ppb. Water consumption was related to application of treatment. Among 98 respondents who were not at all concerned about the health effects of aqueous arsenic, 59 (60 percent) reported consuming tap water with concentrations of arsenic exceeding 10 ppb. Conversely, among 86 respondents who were highly concerned about arsenic, 33 (37 percent) consumed tap water with concentrations of arsenic exceeding 10 ppb. Results from a national sampling effort showed that 620 of 5,304 private wells sampled (11.7 percent) had arsenic concentrations above 10 ppb. The paradox of awareness of arsenic in water supplies coupled with consumption of aqueous arsenic in concentrations greater than 10 ppb may be common in other parts of the nation. Enhanced educational efforts, especially related to tap water sampling and explanations of efficacy of available treatment, may be useful means of reducing exposure through private water supplies.