4.6 Article

Lead Levels in Tap Water at Licensed North Carolina Child Care Facilities, 2020-2021

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 S695-S705

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.307003

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Environmental Protection Agency
  2. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services [RQ22590792]
  3. RTI International internal research and development grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated lead levels in tap water at licensed child care facilities in North Carolina and found that some water sources posed a risk of exceeding the safe lead levels. The main risk factors associated with elevated lead levels were reliance on well water, participation in Head Start programs, and building age. There was significant variability between tap water sources within the same facility.
Objectives. To evaluate lead levels in tap water at licensed North Carolina child care facilities. Methods. Between July 2020 and October 2021, we enrolled 4005 facilities in a grant-funded, participatory science testing program. We identified risk factors associated with elevated first-draw lead levels using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results. By sample (n = 22 943), 3% of tap water sources exceeded the 10 parts per billion (ppb) North Carolina hazard level, whereas 25% of tap water sources exceeded 1 ppb, the American Academy of Pediatrics' reference level. By facility, at least 1 tap water source exceeded 1 ppb and 10 ppb at 56% and 12% of facilities, respectively. Well water reliance was the largest risk factor, followed by participation in Head Start programs and building age. We observed large variability between tap water sources within the same facility. Conclusions. Tap water in child care facilities is a potential lead exposure source for children. Given variability among tap water sources, it is imperative to test every source used for drinking and cooking so appropriate action can be taken to protect children's health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据