Sources of and solutions to mistrust of tap water originating between treatment and the tap: Lessons from Los Angeles County

Pierce, Gregory; González, Silvia R.; Roquemore, Peter; Ferdman, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133646

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies found that about two-thirds of US adults and youth perceived their local tap water as safe to consume (Onufrak, Park, Sharkey, Merlo, et al 2014;Family et al 2019). Mistrust was higher among non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, and those with low socioeconomic status as compared with their counterparts of non-Hispanic Whites and those with higher socioeconomic status (Onufrak, Park, Sharkey, Merlo, et al 2014;Pierce et al 2019). Alternatively, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations were more likely to consume bottled water than the non-Hispanic White population (Rosinger et al 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Associations between Household Water Fluoridation Status and Plain Tap or Bottled Water Consumption

Lin

Griffin

Park

et al. 2020

JDR Clinical & Translational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries are attenuated if people do not consume tap water. Objectives: We examined associations between household water fluoride content and consuming plain tap or bottled water among US youth. Methods: We used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data for 2013 to 2016 for 5,193 youth aged 2 to 19 y. Fluoride content in youth’s household tap water samples was measured electrometrically with ion-specific electrodes and designated low (<0.6 mg/L) or about optimal (0.6 to 1.2 mg/L). Plain tap and bottled water consumption was obtained from one 24-h dietary recall. We used binomial regression models to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (APRs) and 95% CIs for consuming plain tap water (including tap only or both tap and bottled) and consuming only bottled water as related to household water fluoride content (low or about optimal) and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: On a given day, 52.6% of youth consumed plain tap water (43.8% exclusively and 8.8% both tap and bottled) and 28%, only bottled water. Neither tap water (APR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.10) nor only bottled water (APR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.22) consumption was associated with household water fluoride content. Non-Hispanic Black youth and Hispanic youth were about 30% relatively less likely to consume tap water and 60% to 80% relatively more likely to consume only bottled water than non-Hispanic Whites. Low income, low parental education, and no past-year dental visit were associated with not consuming tap water. Conclusion: Half of youth consumed plain tap water on a given day. Consuming plain tap water was not associated with community water fluoridation status. This study is the first to find that up to 50% of the population served by fluoridated water may not receive its full caries-preventive benefits due to not consuming plain tap water. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Half of US youth consumed plain tap water on a given day. Consuming plain tap water was not associated with community water fluoridation status. This finding suggests that up to 50% of the population served by fluoridated water systems may not receive its full caries-preventive benefits due to not consuming plain tap water. Our findings add support for the need to identify and address barriers to tap water consumption and promote health benefits of fluoridation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Associations between Household Water Fluoridation Status and Plain Tap or Bottled Water Consumption

Lin

Griffin

Park

et al. 2020

JDR Clinical & Translational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the ability to access piped water is linked to the geography and scale of drinking water systems. Mismatched utility districts, municipal boundaries, and water service inclusion decisions can result in exclusion from the network (Pierce, Gonzalez, Roquemore, & Ferdman, 2019). Across North America and Europe, smaller systems tend to fail in providing universal water access more often than larger systems (McFarlane & Harris, 2018; Orru & Rothstein, 2015).…”

Section: Exposing Six Myths Of Household Water Insecuritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such early instances of network exclusion—both political and geographic—established a path of water insecurity in which communities and households found themselves in subsequent decades (Vandewalle & Jepson, 2015). In some areas, foreign‐born U.S. residents continue to depend on water trucks, stores, and vending machines, despite recent local improvements in water and sanitation services (Jepson & Brown, 2014; Pierce, Gonzalez, et al, 2019). A recent study revealed the odds of being water insecure were 4.2 times more likely for “mixed status” households as compared to households with members who were all documented (Jepson & Vandewalle, 2016).…”

Section: Exposing Six Myths Of Household Water Insecuritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, First Nations in Canada and Indigenous peoples elsewhere continued use of untreated traditional water sources is often assessed as “unsafe” by Western colonial standards but more holistic assessments of risk or safety explain the role of relationships to water as a “living entity” and settler‐colonial histories as they inform needs for spiritual and cultural well‐being and broader distrust in water treatment (e.g., chlorination and its effects on physical health and the spirit of water itself (Eichelberger, 2016; Goldhar, Bell, & Wolf, 2013; Wilson et al, 2019). In some cases, water may be perceived as “unclean” but not necessarily unsafe per existing regulations, leading to mistrust in tap water (Parag & Roberts, 2009; Pierce, Gonzalez, et al, 2019). In this way, different notions of risk further exacerbate tensions between how regulatory science and communities begin to define clean and safe water.…”

Section: Exposing Six Myths Of Household Water Insecuritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: A critical review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safe and secure water is a cornerstone of modern life in the global North. This article critically examines a set of prevalent myths about household water in high-income countries, with a focus on Canada and the United States. Taking a relational approach, we argue that household water insecurity is a product of institutionalized structures and power, manifests unevenly through space and time, and is reproduced in places we tend to assume are the most water-secure in the world. We first briefly introduce "modern water" and the modern infrastructural ideal, a highly influential set of ideas that have shaped household water provision and infrastructure development over the past two centuries. Against this backdrop, we consolidate evidence to disrupt a set of narratives about water in high-income countries: the notion that water access is universal, clean, affordable, trustworthy, and uniformly or equitably governed. We identify five thematic areas of future research to delineate an agenda for advancing scholarship and actionincluding challenges of legal and regulatory regimes, the housing-water nexus, water affordability, and water quality and contamination. Data gaps underpin the experiences of household water insecurity. Taken together, our review of water security for households in high-income countries provides a conceptual map to direct critical research in this area for the coming years.

show abstract

“…Рис. Концентрация общего железа (а) и мутности (б) в питьевой воде централизованного водоснабжения, взятой из подземных источников, на водонасосной станции и из распределительной сети __________________________ Данная закономерность наблюдалась не только в исследуемых точках о. Русский, но и на других территориях края и за его пределами [14][15][16][17][18]. Содержание железа выше 1 мг/л ухудшает органолептические свойства воды, она становится мутной, окрашивается в желто-бурый цвет, у нее ощущается характерный металлический привкус, на стенках труб происходит образование слизи, присущее железобактериям.…”

unclassified

Hygienic assessment of drinking water from underground water sources taken from centralized water supply systems on island Russkiy

Bogdanova¹,

Kiku²,

Kislitsyna³

2020

Health Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Одним из ведущих эколого-гигиенических факторов влияния на здоровье населения является питьевая вода изза присутствия в ней химических веществ как природного, так и антропогенного происхождения. Проведена гигиеническая оценка качества водоснабжения о. Русский (Приморский край) по 33 санитарно-химическим и трем микробиологическим показателям на трех этапах: из подземных источников (120 проб), на водонасосных станциях (138 проб) и из распределительной сети (204 пробы) за 2017-2019 гг. Первый этап гигиенической оценки питьевой воды проведен с использованием методических указаний ФНЦГ им. Ф.Ф. Эрисмана «Оценка санитарно-эпидемиологической надежности систем централизованного питьевого водоснабжения» (МР 2.1.4-2370-08). Второй этап, включающий расчет рефлекторно-ольфакторного, хронического неканцерогенного и канцерогенного эффектов воздействия, проведен с использованием интегральной оценки питьевой воды централизованных систем водоснабжения по показателям химической безвредности (МР 2.1.4.0032-11). Установлено, что наиболее высокий вклад в санитарно-эпидемиологическое неблагополучие систем централизованного хозяйственно-питьевого водоснабжения вносит ухудшение качества воды по микробиологическим и органолептическим показателям в процессе ее транспортировки. Выявлено превышение допустимого уровня приемлемого неканцерогенного риска и ольфакторно-рефлекторных эффектов воздействия. Анализ показал, что приоритетными факторами, определяющими неблагополучие качества питьевой воды, являются показатели физиологической неполноценности, содержание соединений железа и мутность. Химический состав питьевой воды не представляет значимой угрозы здоровью населения, однако требуется реконструкция водопроводных систем и коррекция недостатка макро-и микроэлементов в питьевой воде за счет дополнительных источников их поступления.

show abstract

Sources of and solutions to mistrust of tap water originating between treatment and the tap: Lessons from Los Angeles County

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Associations between Household Water Fluoridation Status and Plain Tap or Bottled Water Consumption

Associations between Household Water Fluoridation Status and Plain Tap or Bottled Water Consumption

Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: A critical review

Hygienic assessment of drinking water from underground water sources taken from centralized water supply systems on island Russkiy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About