Drinking Water Criteria for Arsenic in High-Income, Low-Dose Countries: The Effect of Legislation on Public Health

Abstract

Due to the potential health risks at very low concentrations, the criterion for arsenic in drinking water has been debated. High-income, low-dose countries are uniquely positioned to follow WHO’s recommendation of keeping concentrations “as low as reasonably possible.” In this policy analysis, 47646 arsenic analyses from Denmark are used to follow the effect of lowering the national criterion from 50 to 5 μg/L. The first 3 years (2002–2004) following the criterion change, 106 waterworks were identified as noncompliant. An additional 64 waterworks were identified as noncompliant in the next 12 years (2005–2016). Of the 106 waterworks initially (2002–2004) aware of the violation, an average concentration drop from 6 to 3 μg/L was observed during a 6 year period following a lag time of 1 year. After this point, no further improvements were observed. Thirteen years after regulation was imposed, 25 of 170 waterworks were still in violation. The results suggest that legislation alone is insufficient to ensure better drinking water quality at some waterworks and that stakeholders’ drivers and barriers to change also play an important role. In an exploration of five legislation scenarios, this study showed that a criterion of 1 μg/L would require action by more than 500 Danish waterworks, with treatment costs from 0.06 to 0.70 €/m3. These scenarios illustrate that it can be technically feasible and affordable to lower the arsenic criterion below 5 μg/L in low-dose, high-income countries. However, more information is needed to apply a cost–benefit model, and comparative studies from other counties are warranted.

Ultrasensitive Reagent for Ratiometric Detection and Detoxification of iAsIII in Water and Mitochondria

“…ESI-MS shows signals at 354.16 (Figure S9, Supporting Information), which correspond to iAs V −HPBT (calculated mass: 354. 16). Literature reports also reveal that Ir-(BZQ) 2 (H 2 O) 2 is non-phosphorescent.…”

“…Considering the acute and the high level of toxicity induced by iAs III contamination, the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have set the maximum allowed contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water as ≤10 ppb (0.52 μM). , The groundwater of certain parts of many countries is reported to have an arsenic level that is well above the value specified by WHO. − To date, various conventional analytical techniques are commonly used for the detection of inorganic arsenic ( iAs III ). − Although these techniques allow for sensitive and accurate quantification of iAs III , these methods require cumbersome sample processing, time, and highly trained personnel, which limit their applications for routine on-sight measurements. , Considering such limitations, there is a conscious and focused effort for developing molecular sensors that could be integrated into an inexpensive optical device for specific, sensitive, and instantaneous in-field detection of the iAs III with an associated optical read-out signal. Notably, such methodology with an associated switch ON optical response helps in achieving a favorable signal-to-noise ratio and a trace-level quantification.…”

“…12−14 Considering the acute and the high level of toxicity induced by iAs III contamination, the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have set the maximum allowed contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water as ≤10 ppb (0.52 μM). 15,16 The groundwater of certain parts of many countries is reported to have an arsenic level that is well above the value specified by WHO. 16−19 To date, various conventional analytical techniques are commonly used for the detection of inorganic arsenic (iAs III ).…”

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

“…In contrast, in regions where government is effective and resources are sufficient, such as in Denmark and the Netherlands, reducing the national drinking water standard for As to below 5 μg/L in was found to be both technically feasible and affordable [ 248 , 311 ]. Even in regions in which there are limited resources for implementation and compliance, establishing and updating drinking water standards and guidelines can be of use to stakeholders who need to determine whether a water source is safe, and to put pressure on water suppliers to improve the quality of the water [ 311 ].…”

A review of arsenic mitigation strategies in community water supplies with insights from South Asia: options, opportunities and constraints

“…[31][32][33][34] In addition, a few recent studies also speculate that exposure to As below 10 μg L −1 may also impose some toxicity. 35,36 National and international agencies have devised numerous mitigation strategies to safeguard millions of people living in As-affected regions. The options employed globally can be categorized as preventive and curative measures.…”