Arsenic in drinking water: An analysis of global drinking water regulations and recommendations for updates to protect public health

Abstract

Evidence-based public health policy often comes years or decades after the underlying scientific breakthrough. The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) provisional 10 μg/L arsenic (As) drinking water guideline was set in 1993 based on “analytical achievability.” In 2011, an additional proviso of “treatment performance” was added; a health-based risk assessment would lead to a lower and more protective guideline. Since the WHO does not require United Nations member states to submit copies of national drinking water regulations, there is no complete database of national drinking water standards or guidelines. In this study, we collated and analyzed all drinking water regulations for As from national governments worldwide. We found regulations for 176 countries. Of these countries, 136 have drinking water regulations that specify 10 μg/L As or less, while 40 have regulations that allow more than 10 μg/L of As; we could not find any evidence of regulations for 19 countries. The number of people living in countries that do not meet the WHO’s guideline constitutes 32% of the global population. Global As regulations are also strongly tied to national income, with high income countries more likely to meet the WHO’s guideline. In this study, we examined the health risk assessments that show a clear need for reducing As exposure to levels far below the current WHO provisional guideline. We also show that advances in analytical chemistry, drinking water treatment, and the possibility of accessing alternative drinking water supplies without As suggest that both low-income countries with limited resources and high-income countries with adequate resources can adopt a lower and more protective national drinking water standards or guidelines for As. Thus, we recommend that regulators and stake holders of all nations reassess the possibilities for improving public health and reducing health care expenses by adopting more stringent regulations for As in drinking water.

Sanitary Hygiene of Refilled Drinking Water Depots during the Covid-19 Pandemic

“…The sanitary Hygiene Examination in Kota Kampar District, Kampar Regency found only 43% of total depots met the standard (Herniwanti & Ray, 2022). In the area of the Rambah Rokan Hulu Public Health Center, many depots did not have the permit and no routine checks were performed by the health center (Sari et al, 2020), while depot owners seemed to lack knowledge regarding this matter (Frisbie & Mitchell, 2022). To address this problem, guidance and supervision from the Public Health Center and the Health Office significantly affect the quality of refilled drinking water depots.…”

Worldwide Surveillance Actions and Initiatives of Drinking Water Quality: A Scoping Review

“…Surveillance actions of drinking water quality in emergency situations were related to natural or anthropogenic disasters, such as tsunamis [49], dam failure accidents [51], and environmental disasters in the paper industry [31]. The actions involved the identification of priorities related to drinking water quality [49], including periodic monitoring and collective and individual supply solutions to gather water from underground sources in the affected municipalities [51]; detection of vulnerable points in the network [31] to improve the microbiological and chemical safety of water; and analysis of household wells to classify the risk in water consumption [9]. The need to create intersectoral technical working groups [31] or operating committees for integrating essential areas to attend to emergencies [51] was also highlighted, besides the installation of chlorinated water tanks, distribution of domestic water treatment reagents to residences in the affected areas [65], and improvements in water management related to source protection, disinfection practices, and attention to contamination [49].…”

“…However, these legal standards alone do not ensure compliance and implementation, especially in regions with limited government and resources [9]. For example, a study illustrated the contamination of water sources by coliforms, bacterial or chemical contaminants, and high concentrations of arsenic, manganese, and iron [10].…”

Functionalised polymeric materials for the removal of arsenate from contaminated water

“…Recent studies estimate that more than 226 million people are exposed to concentrations of arsenic in drinking water above the guideline value of 10 μg L −1 , established by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1993. 1 This is a particularly acute problem in Bangladesh, India, China and Pakistan, with the situation in Bangladesh being described by the WHO as the "largest mass poisoning of a population in history". 2 While most high-income countries use the WHO 10 μg L −1 guideline value, this is deemed "provisional" since risk assessment data indicate that a lower value would be more appropriate.…”

“…in Denmark, the officially recommended maximum level of arsenic in water is 5 μg L −1 ). 1 Therefore, there is a pressing need to improve low-cost technologies that are effective at removing arsenic from water.…”