Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Faucet-mounted point-of-use drinking water filters to improve water

quality in households served by private wells
Hannah Patton a, *, Leigh-Anne Krometis a, Erin Ling a, Alasdair Cohen b, Emily Sarver c
a
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Seitz Hall, RM 200, Virginia Tech, 155 Ag Quad Lane, Blacksburg, VA
24060, United States of America
b
Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 205 Duck Pond Drive, VA-MD College of Veterinary Medicine (0442),
Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States of America
c
Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 378 Holden Hall, Virginia Tech, 445 Old Turner St., Blacksburg, VA
24061, United States of America

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Point-of-use filters significantly reduced

concentrations of contaminants in well
water.
• Contaminants in some filtered water
samples still exceeded EPA
recommendations.
• Unfiltered source water quality appears
to impact filter performance.
• The majority of study participants had
concerns about POU filter use.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Paola Verlicchi Approximately 13 % of Americans rely on private wells for household potable water. As private wells are not
regulated beyond initial construction and often employ limited or no treatment, source water from wells can be
Keywords: vulnerable to contamination. While several studies have assessed applications of point-of-use (POU) filters in
Point-of-use filter improving municipal tap water quality, few have investigated their use with private well water. This effort aims
Drinking water
to build on previous examinations of POU treatment as a strategy to reduce adverse household drinking water
Lead
exposures by: 1) assessing the effectiveness of commercially available faucet-mounted POU filters for improving
Private wells
iron microbial and chemical water quality in homes with private wells; and 2) documenting household ease of use and
Coliform satisfaction with the filters. Faucet-mounted POU filters were distributed to 21 homes reliant on private wells in
southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia. Study participants were asked to collect water samples from
two taps in their homes pre-filter installation, and again two-weeks and four-weeks post-installation. Participants
filled out surveys about perceptions of their drinking water and the filter. Concentrations of Total Coliform, Ba,
Cd, Cr, U, Cu, Pb, Al, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Sr were significantly lower (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) in filtered water
samples compared to paired unfiltered samples (n = 42) for the study period. However, concentrations of certain

* Corresponding author at: 200 Seitz Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060, United States of America.
E-mail address: hpatton@vt.edu (H. Patton).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167252
Received 22 April 2023; Received in revised form 17 September 2023; Accepted 20 September 2023
Available online 22 September 2023
0048-9697/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Patton et al.
contaminants in filtered samples from homes with high levels of source water contamination still exceeded
drinking water standards. Less than half of study participants reported that they intended to keep using the
filters, citing issues of flowrate. Our findings suggest that faucet-mounted POU filters, while effective in reducing
contaminants, might not be an appropriate intervention to improve water quality for all homes on private well
water. Future investigation is required to improve filter user satisfaction and better assess appropriate source
water chemistries for implementation.
1. Introduction
In the United States, approximately 13 % of the population relies on
private, self-supplied water as a primary household water source, most
often via private wells, which fall beyond the auspices of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA; Dieter et al., 2018). Private wells are defined as
groundwater systems that serve no >25 people at least 60 days of the
year and have fewer than 15 service connections (CDC, 2014). The
presence of elevated concentrations of health- and aesthetic-based
contaminants in drinking water sourced from private wells at the
point-of-use (POU) is well documented (Shiber, 2005; Pieper et al.,
2015; Flanagan et al., 2016; Law et al., 2017; Mulhern and Gibson,
2020; Patton et al., 2020; Cohen et al., 2022). This is unsurprising given
the associated time commitment and cost of water sampling and testing,
treatment system installation, and the maintenance required of private
well owners (Jones et al., 2006; Hexemer et al., 2008; Gibson and
Pieper, 2017; Lee and Murphy, 2020). Moreover, many owners are un­
aware of testing recommendations and/or do not test their water based
on the perception that their water is safe because of satisfactory taste
and/or smell, and, as a result, may not recognize existing water quality
issues (Knobeloch, 2009; Swistock et al., 2015; Gibson and Pieper, 2017;
Mulhern et al., 2022).
Point-of-use water treatment, i.e. water treatment immediately prior
to consumption, is often promoted as a strategy in the developing world
to empower communities without assured access to safe drinking water
to reduce exposure to contaminants via in-home treatment (Sobsey
et al., 2008; Rosa and Clasen, 2010). In recent years, levels of distrust in
tap water in the United States, perhaps as a result of highly publicized
municipal drinking water crises, has increased interest in POU treatment
devices, including faucet-mounted, pitcher, and under-sink filters
(Javidi and Pierce, 2018; Wu et al., 2021). Interest in the implementa­
tion of POU filtration devices to remove metals at the tap in homes
served by municipal water increased markedly following the Flint,
Michigan lead in drinking water crisis (U.S. EPA, 2016; Bosscher et al.,
2019). In 2016, the U.S. EPA completed in-home POU faucet filter ef­
ficacy testing in Flint, collecting filtered and unfiltered water samples
from over 200 taps (U.S. EPA, 2016). When installed correctly and
operating properly, commercially available filters were effective in
reducing Pb, i.e. 80 % of filtered samples tested were below the detec­
tion level for Pb, with an overall average Pb concentration below 0.3 ppb
(U.S. EPA, 2016). Further review of these findings and additional sam­
pling of at-risk populations in homes with full lead service lines by the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), confirmed
that the Brita and PUR brand faucet filters distributed in Flint consis­
tently reduced Pb in tap water sourced from the municipal system (U.S.
EPA, 2016). A study by Bosscher et al. (2019) focusing on the impacts of
faucet-mounted POU filters in Flint, MI reported that 100 % of the
filtered samples collected (n = 345) contained Pb concentrations below
the 15 ppb action level (median concentration = 3.1 ppb) established in
the SDWA. Both Cu and Zn concentrations were also reduced below their
respective SDWA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and 99.6 % and
99.4 % of filter samples, respectively, contained Fe and Mn concentra­
tions below secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs).
Though primarily marketed and designed to remove metals con­
taminants, multiple past field studies have also assessed the ability of
POU filters in reducing microbial and/or chemical contaminant
2
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
exposure at the household tap (Colford Jr et al., 2005; Colford Jr et al.,
2009; Bosscher et al., 2019; Herkert et al., 2020; Mulhern and Gibson,
2020; Mulhern et al., 2021; Mulhern et al., 2022). Colford Jr et al.
(2005) conducted a randomized control trial of a POU drinking water
treatment system that employed 1-μm filtration and ultraviolet filtration
in 456 homes near Davenport, Iowa reliant on municipal water. The
purpose of the treatment system was to reduce microbial contamination,
but no reduction in gastrointestinal illness was detected after imple­
mentation. However, a larger randomized crossover trial conducted in
an older population in California reliant on municipal water (n = 714),
organized by the same research team using the same POU filtration
device, reported that the use of the devices was associated with a
reduction in both population- and individual-level measures of highly
credible gastrointestinal illness (HCGI; Colford Jr et al., 2009). More
recently, Mulhern et al. (2021) analyzed the occurrence of microbial
indicator organisms in private well water (n = 17) treated using acti­
vated carbon-based POU filters in order to better understand microbial-
related health risks associated with POU filters. They determined that,
under normal filter use conditions, the microbial water quality in
filtered well water was comparable to that of unfiltered well water, i.e.
while there were same changed in compositions of planktonic biofilm
microbes across homes, these were not directly the result of filter use
and did not appreciably change household risk. This suggests that while
POU filter use does not result in additional infectious health risks, well
users should not rely solely on activated carbon POU filters to protect
them against microbial contaminants.
Given documented success in improving drinking water sourced
from centralized municipal sources, POU water treatment devices have
been proposed as a relatively affordable, accessible, and expeditious
water treatment solution for well users struggling with persistent
contamination, as these devices are readily available at retailers and do
not require professional installation (Mulhern et al., 2022). However, at
present, we are aware of only one study focused on examining the
effectiveness of under-sink POU filters in removing Pb in water sourced
from private wells. In a study of 17 North Carolina households, Mulhern
and Gibson (2020) reported 98 % mean Pb removal in all filtered sam­
ples. A companion study by Mulhern et al. (2022) suggested that
installation of these filters increased consumer confidence, while 77 %
of participants felt they were vulnerable to poor well water quality at the
beginning of the study, only 23 % of participants continued to feel
vulnerable after installing the provided under-sink POU treatment
devices.
To build on recent examinations of POU treatment as a strategy to
reduce adverse household drinking water exposures, the present
research effort aimed to: 1) determine the effectiveness of commercially
available end-of-faucet POU filters in improving microbial and chemical
water quality in homes dependent on private wells; and 2) document
household ease-of-use and satisfaction with this intervention. End-of-
faucet filters were selected for this research, given previous positive
experiences in Flint, MI, as well as user ease of installation. This work
was centered within the Central Appalachian region, a recognized area
of water inequity within the United States (Mueller and Gasteyer, 2021).
In addition to regional socio-economic challenges, the unique underly­
ing geology and topography can result in particularly complex source
water chemistries (Cook et al., 2015; Pieper et al., 2016; Arcipowski
et al., 2017). Approximately 25 % of households in Appalachia rely on
private wells for drinking water (Hughes et al., 2005), almost twice the
H. Patton et al.
national average (Law et al., 2017; Dieter et al., 2018),. Better under­
standing the effectiveness of POU filters in improving household water
quality at the tap in homes on private well water would help support
practical water treatment strategies for some communities, particularly
where the availability of municipal water is likely not practical in the
near term.
2. Methods
2.1. Participant recruitment & study area
Participating households were recruited from Craig, Franklin, Giles,
Montgomery, Pittsylvania, and Roanoke Counties in Virginia and
McDowell County in West Virginia (Fig. 1). Study participants in Craig,
Franklin, Giles, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, and Roanoke Counties in
Virginia were recruited through a partnership with the Virginia
Household Water Quality Program (VAHWQP), a longstanding Coop­
erative Extension program that provides low-cost water quality testing
and well maintenance education to Virginia households (Benham et al.,
2016). Participants in previous VAHWQP water clinics within the six
targeted counties that had submitted samples with Pb concentrations
>5 ppb and/or Fe concentrations >300 ppb in the last two years
(2020− 2022) were eligible to participate. The six targeted counties in
Virginia were selected based on similar underlying geology, previous
analysis of well water quality, and the availability of sponsored funds to
cover the costs of filters and water quality analysis. Study participants
from McDowell County, WV were identified and recruited via commu­
nication with community contacts who previously helped organize
participation in another recent drinking water study (Patton et al.,
2020); given community size and widespread documented water quality
concerns, all households reliant on private wells within the county were
eligible to participate. Recruitment and enrollment procedures were
developed and approved in accordance with the Virginia Tech Institu­
tional Review Board, which also maintained ethical oversight (VT IRB
Fig. 1. West Virginia and Virginia Counties included in the study.
3
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
Protocol #21-125).
2.2. Study design
Following recruitment and consent, participants received (via mail
and in-person delivery) drinking water sampling kits for pre- and post-
intervention sampling, a commercially available faucet filter, and
printed instructions (Supplementary Fig. S1). Study participants were
asked to collect two pre-intervention drinking water samples, one from
their most frequently used tap (e.g. kitchen tap), referred to as a “pri­
mary” tap, and the other from a different frequently used tap (e.g.
bathroom tap), referred to as a “secondary” tap. Following collection,
participants were instructed to install the faucet filter on their primary
tap. Two-weeks post-installation, participants collected two more water
samples, one from the primary tap (now with the filter) and one from the
secondary tap (without the filter). Four-weeks post-installation, the
participants again collected two drinking water samples, one from the
tap with the filter intervention and one from the tap without the inter­
vention. Collection of water from two taps at all sampling times
permitted an internal control observation of unfiltered drinking water
throughout the study, since private well water quality can vary; addi­
tionally, this approach eliminated the possibility that removal/
replacement of POU treatment at the primary source might result in user
error or otherwise poorly mimic typical use.
A four-week study period was chosen based on concerns about source
water concentrations of Fe and/or Pb prematurely clogging filters ahead
of the manufacturer recommended filter lifetime. Additionally, this time
period helped ensure the best likelihood of study participants
completing all three sampling dates. Sampling dates and sample pick-
up/drop-off locations were coordinated with study participants in
order to provide a more convenient sampling schedule that would allow
for a shorter turnaround time between sample collection and analysis,
and better ensure continued participation for the duration of the study
period. All samples were collected on the same day of sampling and
H. Patton et al.
transported immediately on ice to the laboratory for bacteriological
analysis, collection of pH and conductivity measurements, and prepa­
ration for future metals analysis. In addition to collecting water samples,
study participants also completed a survey (Supplementary Fig. 2)
regarding perceptions of both their drinking water and their use of the
POU filter.
All participants were provided the same model and brand of faucet
filter which included filter housing, a filter cartridge, manufacturer in­
structions, and fixture attachments for filter installation on the tap. The
filters utilize an activated carbon and ion exchange water treatment
system and are NSF-certified to remove 70 contaminants including Pb.
The manufacturer recommends that the faucet filters be replaced every
three months, or after treating 100 gal of water.
2.3. Sample collection
Sampling was completed between May 2021 and March 2023.
Sampling kits included two sets (one each for the primary and secondary
taps) of three prepared acid-washed 125 mL bottles for: 1) first- and 2)
second-draw metal cation analysis and 3) pH and conductivity mea­
surements, as well as one sterile 125 mL bottle for bacteriological
analysis. Per U.S. EPA home sampling guidelines (EPA 815-F-18-022; U.
S. EPA, 2018), residents were instructed to leave their water stagnant in
their pipes overnight and to obtain a first-draw sample in the morning,
flush the pipes for 30 s, and then collect the second-draw sample, fol­
lowed by one sample for bacteriological analysis and one sample for pH
and conductivity measurements. Contaminant concentrations in first-
and second-draw home tap water samples were compared to better
determine the maximum health risk (i.e., worst-case scenario following
overnight stagnation) a resident might be exposed to at their tap on the
given sampling day, as well as to confirm whether the presence of high
Pb was most likely from premise plumbing. After sample collection,
residents were instructed to tightly cap the bottles, which were picked
up the same day by the research team. Samples were packed in iced
coolers for transport back to the laboratory and immediate analysis.
2.4. Laboratory analysis
Water sample concentrations of total coliform and E. coli were
determined via the Colilert defined substrate method immediately upon
returning to the laboratory on the day of sampling (www.idexx.com,
Westbrook, MN; Standard Method 9223). Metals analysis for first- and
second-draw home samples was completed using the ICP-MS process as
stated in Standard Methods 3030D and 3125B (APHA/AWWA/WEF,
1998), specifically providing concentration of Na, Al, SO4, Cl, Ca, Cr, Fe,
Mn, Cu, As, Se, Sr, Ag, Cd, Ba, Pb, and U.
In keeping with standard VAHWQP practice (Benham et al., 2016),
participants received water quality reports with all data from both home
taps from each sampling day as well as a written letter outlining any
contaminant concentrations that exceeded SDWA recommendations and
their associated health risks and/or aesthetic effects on drinking water.
This letter also included brief recommendations regarding possible
home water quality improvements as well as contact information for
further questions or concerns.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of the differences between filtered and unfiltered
home water quality across the study period was conducted via the
Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for non-parametric data. All tests were con­
ducted in RStudio version 2022.07.1+554 (RStudio, Boston, MA). For
paired samples, the highest recorded concentrations between each set of
first- and second-draw samples collected at each tap were utilized in
statistical analysis. This is because the focus for this paper is on the
highest concentration of contaminants an individual would be exposed
to at their tap. After visually checking for normality using the “ggplot2”
4
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
data package, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for nonparametric data was
run on paired samples for each individual constituent analyzed, with
significance defined at an alpha of 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Initial water quality across household taps
Twenty-one homes completed the full study (n = 2 in WV, n = 19 in
VA), including filter installation, all three rounds of sampling, and sur­
vey completion. A total of 33 homes were initially recruited; however,
ten homes could not participate in the study as they were unable to
install the filters successfully due to the age/brand/type of faucets in
their home and two homes were lost to follow-up during the duration of
the study and missed either one or both of the post-installation sampling
dates.
Table 1 presents a comparison of primary and secondary tap water
quality prior to the distribution and installation of the water filters. As
stated in the methods, reported table values are based on the highest
recorded concentrations between first- and second-draw samples
collected from both the primary and secondary taps.
3.2. Tap water quality post-filter installation
Post-installation, samples collected from the filtered taps generally
had lower concentrations of most of the analyzed contaminants
compared to samples collected from paired unfiltered taps (Fig. 2).
Notably, in over 70 % of sample pairs, filtered samples had generally
lower concentrations of Al, Ba, Cu, Fe, Pb, Sr, and Zn.
Table 2 presents a comparison of filtered and unfiltered water sam­
ples collected two-weeks and four-weeks after filter installation.
4. Discussion
4.1. Unfiltered private well water quality at the tap
Samples collected from the majority of homes exceeded at least one
SDWA regulation (health-based contaminants) and/or recommendation
(nuisance or formally unregulated contaminants; Table 1). Consistent
with previous POU surveys of homes dependent on private systems
(Allevi et al., 2013; Patton et al., 2020), the most common contaminant
of concern detected was total coliform; as shown in Table 1, over 60 % of
homes had unfiltered tap water samples (i.e., 13 of 21) that tested
positive in this study.
Lead concentrations in unfiltered primary and secondary taps ranged
from <0.1–178.5 ppb and 0.1–98.4 ppb, respectively, with 24 % of
primary tap water samples and 33 % of secondary tap water samples
exceeding the SDWA MCL for Pb of 15 ppb. Additionally, Pb concen­
trations were detectable (i.e., Pb > 0.1 ppb) in 76 % and 100 % of
unfiltered samples collected from primary and secondary taps, respec­
tively. At present, the U.S. EPA provides a Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal (MCLG) for Pb of 0 ppb, i.e., there is no safe level of exposure (U.S.
EPA, 2023). High corrosive conditions and high Pb concentrations not
uncommon in homes reliant on private well water (Pieper et al., 2016).
Pieper et al. (2015) reported Pb concentration above the SDWA MCL in
over 20 % of first draws in 2146 samples from homes reliant on private
wells in Virginia, including one home with over 24,740 ppb of Pb, 1600
times the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) action level of 15 ppb (U.S.
EPA, 2023).
Iron concentrations in unfiltered primary and secondary taps ranged
from 1.2 to 9475 ppb and 1.3–6555 ppb, respectively, with 33 % of
primary tap water samples and 29 % of secondary tap water samples
exceeding the SDWA SMCL recommendations for Fe of 300 ppb. Several
previous studies assessing drinking water quality in homes reliant on
private wells also reported Fe concentrations in unfiltered tap water of
well over 300 ppb (Law et al., 2017; Patton et al., 2020). High
 H. Patton et al.
Table 1
Results of Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test to compare differences in contaminant concentration between paired primary and secondary tap water samples (n = 21) collected prior to the distribution and use of faucet-mounted
POU filters. Reported values are based on the highest recorded concentration between first- and second-draw samples collected from both the primary and secondary taps. (MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, TT =
Treatment Technique, SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level, HRL = Health Reference Level, GL = Guidance Level; all as designated by the U.S. EPA).
Contaminant (U. # of Primary Samples Max. Concentration Median Concentration # of Secondary Samples Max. Concentration Median Concentration P- Primary Tap vs
S. EPA limit) Exceeding Primary Samples (ppb) Primary Samples (ppb) Exceeding Secondary Samples Secondary Samples Value Secondary Tap
Recommendations Recommendations (ppb) (ppb) Comparison

MCL As 0 6 0.1 0 2 0.1 0.33 No Significant

(> 10 ppb) Difference
Ba 1 15,180 31 1 15,928 33 0.66 No Significant
(> 2000 ppb) Difference
Cd 0 0.7 0.1 2 46 0.1 0.11 No Significant
(> 5 ppb) Difference
Cr 0 2 0.4 0 2 0.4 0.62 No Significant
(> 100 ppb) Difference
Se 0 4 0.3 0 4 0.3 0.21 No Significant
(> 50 ppb) Difference
Total Coliform 13 >2419 1.0 8 >2419 Below Detection 0.66 No Significant
(0 MPN/100 mL) Difference
5

U 0 5 Below Detection 0 6 Below Detection 0.40 No Significant

(> 30 ppb) Difference
TT Cu 4 4114.7 241 2 1687 237 0.59 No Significant
(> 1300 ppb) Difference
Pb 5 178.5 5 7 98.4 5 0.27 No Significant
(> 15 ppb) Difference
SMCL Ag 0 0.4 Below Detection 0 0.5 Below Detection 0.48 No Significant
(> 100 ppb) Difference
Al 6 7790 13 4 25,478 15 0.68 No Significant
(50–200 ppb) Difference
Fe 7 9475 37 6 6555 45 0.84 No Significant
(> 300 ppb) Difference
Mn 6 326 13 5 355 12 1.0 No Significant
(> 50 ppb) Difference

Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252

Zn 2 18,612 444 1 5138 523 0.13 No Significant
(> 5000 ppb) Difference
GL/ Na 7 350,113 6384 7 396,887 6482 0.39 No Significant
HRL (> 20,000 ppb) Difference
Sr 1 13,293 50 1 14,058 54 0.87 No Significant
(> 1500 ppb) Difference
H. Patton et al.
Fig. 2. Percentage of filtered and unfiltered water sample pairs (n = 42) in which the filtered sample had lower concentrations of the contaminant of interest
compared to the unfiltered sample. (TC = total coliform).
concentrations of Pb and Fe in pre-filter tap water samples were ex­
pected as many of the study participants were recruited based on
elevated levels of Pb and/or Fe detected in tap water via VAHWQP
sampling. In addition to Pb and Fe, concentrations of Ba, total coliform,
Cu, Al, Mn, Zn, Na, and Sr exceeded SDWA regulations/recommenda­
tions in at least one sample from both primary and secondary taps prior
to filter installation. Many of these constituents have also previously
been reported at high levels in homes reliant on private wells (Pieper
et al., 2015; Patton et al., 2020). During the first round of sampling, i.e.
prior to any filter installation, concentrations of total coliform and all
metals of interest were not statistically significantly different between
the unfiltered primary and unfiltered secondary taps (Table 1), which
supports the use of the secondary tap as an internal no-filter control
during the remainder of the study.
4.2. Comparing water quality in filtered and unfiltered samples: Pb
For most contaminants (Ba, Cd, Cr, Total Coliform, U, Cu, Pb, Al, Fe,
Mn, Zn, and Sr) concentrations were significantly lower in samples
collected from filtered taps (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test; Table 2), which is
consistent with previous studies on filter effectiveness in treating
municipal waters (U.S. EPA, 2016; Bosscher et al., 2019). From a public
health standpoint, Pb removal has often been the main focus of drinking
water treatment and POU filter analysis. In this study, the average Pb
concentration in filtered water samples was 0.8 ppb (compared to 21.0
ppb in unfiltered samples), and Pb was statistically significantly lower in
filtered samples (p < 0.001; Table 2). Most importantly, none of the
filtered samples yielded Pb concentrations above the EPA's action level
(compared to 24 % of the unfiltered samples). These findings are similar
to field studies from the U.S. EPA (2016) and Bosscher et al. (2019),
which reported Pb below 0.3 ppb and 0.5 ppb, respectively, in most of
the drinking water samples treated via end-of-faucet POU filtration.
6
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
4.3. Comparing water quality in filtered and unfiltered samples: other
metals
Though confirmation of Pb removal is perhaps most critical from a
public health standpoint, concentrations of Al, Ba, Cd, Cu, Cr, Fe, Mn, Sr,
total coliform, U, and Zn, were also significantly lower in filtered water
samples compared to paired unfiltered water samples. Removal of Fe
and Mn is notable, as these are common geological contaminants asso­
ciated with aesthetic concerns that can result in reluctance to rely on in-
home water as a drinking water source (Patton et al., 2020). Similar to
findings presented by Mulhern and Gibson (2020), the present study did
not find a statistically significant difference in As concentrations in
filtered compared to unfiltered samples (p = 0.33; Table 2), though
influent As levels were very low in the participating households, with
only one sample exceeding the associated MCL.
It should also be noted that, despite statistically significantly lower
concentrations of Ba, Total Coliform, Cu, Al, Fe, Mn, and Sr in filtered
samples compared to paired unfiltered samples, at least one filtered
sample exceeded the EPA regulations or recommendations for each of
these constituents. High concentrations of Ba, Cu, Al, Fe, Mn, and Sr, in
several filtered samples were likely due to notably high levels of these
constituents in the unfiltered source water. It is possible that the high
concentrations of the constituents rapidly loaded the filters and resulted
in decreased filter performance, as has been documented previously; for
example, Carvajal-Nigro et al. (2022) determined that water with Fe
concentrations above 300 ppb clogged pitcher filters prematurely, at
between 38 and 68 % of rated capacity. Many of the unfiltered source
water samples collected in this study yielded concentrations of the
nuisance contaminants Fe, Mn, and Al that were at least twice SDWA
recommended levels. Additionally, unfiltered samples from one home in
McDowell County, WV had Ba concentrations of over 15,000 ppb, seven
times the SDWA MCL of 2000 ppb, and Sr concentrations of over 13,000
ppb, nine times the EPA's Health Reference Level (HRL) of 1500 ppb.
Concentrations of Ba and Sr in filtered samples from this home were also
over 14,000 ppb and 13,000 ppb, respectively.
 H. Patton et al.
Table 2
Results of Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test to compare differences in contaminant concentrations between paired filtered and unfiltered tap water samples (n = 42) collected at Week 2 and Week 4, after the installation of faucet-
mounted POU filters. Reported values are based on the highest recorded concentration between first- and second-draw samples collected from both the primary and secondary taps. (MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level,
TT = Treatment Technique, SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level, HRL = Health Reference Level, GL = Guidance Level).
Contaminant (U.S. # of Filtered Samples Max. Concentration Median Concentration # of Unfiltered Samples Max. Concentration Median Concentration P- Filtered vs.
EPA limit) Exceeding Filtered Samples (ppb) Filtered Samples (ppb) Exceeding Unfiltered Samples Unfiltered Samples Value Unfiltered
Recommendations Recommendations (ppb) (ppb) Comparison

MCL As 1 10 0.1 0 4 0.1 0.33 No Significant

(> 10 ppb) Difference
Ba 2 15,854 0.6 2 15,685 26 p< Filtered <
(> 2000 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Cd 0 0.2 Below Detection 4 40 0.1 p< Filtered <
(> 5 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Cr 0 2 0.3 0 11 0.4 p< Filtered <
(> 100 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Se 0 8 0.4 0 4 0.3 p< Filtered >
(> 50 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Total Coliform 10 >2419 Below Detection 19 >2419 Below Detection p< Filtered <
(0 MPN/100 mL) 0.001 Unfiltered
7

U 0 5 Below Detection 0 6 Below Detection p< Filtered <

(> 30 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
TT Cu 1 2531 0.4 4 2632 219 p< Filtered <
(> 1300 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Pb 0 12 Below Detection 10 236 7 p< Filtered <
(> 15 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
SMCL Ag 0 0.3 Below Detection 0 0.5 Below Detection 0.11 No Significant
(> 100 ppb) Difference
Al 8 916 4 11 373 11 0.003 Filtered <
(50–200 ppb) Unfiltered
Fe 5 1163 5 11 8422 27 p< Filtered <
(> 300 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Mn 7 220 4 13 4521 11 0.003 Filtered <
(> 50 ppb) Unfiltered

Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252

Zn 0 1926 5 3 13,290 676 p< Filtered <
(> 5000 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
GL/ Na 21 530,564 17,231 15 522,254 7247 p< Filtered >
HRL (> 20,000 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
Sr 2 13,635 20 2 14,110 55 p< Filtered <
(> 1500 ppb) 0.001 Unfiltered
H. Patton et al.
Interestingly, both Na and Se values were statistically significantly
higher in filtered water samples when compared to unfiltered pairs (p ≪
0.001; Table 2). Selenium, like As, was present at very low concentra­
tions (at least 100 times below the MCL). Increases in Na, on the other
hand, may be due to the treatment mechanisms at work within the POU
filter (U.S. EPA, 2003). While Na is not regulated as a health-based or
aesthetic contaminant in the SDWA, the EPA does recommend a guid­
ance level of 20,000 ppb for the contaminant, based on individuals who
have been prescribed low-sodium diets for health reasons (U.S. EPA,
2003). A report from the World Health Organization (WHO) on global
drinking water regulations states that the majority of countries setting
drinking water standards for Na use a limit of 200 mg/L (the average
taste threshold for sodium), ten times the EPA's guidance level (WHO,
2018; Cohen et al., 2022).
4.4. Comparing water quality in filtered and unfiltered samples: total
coliform
Total coliform concentrations were also statistically significantly
lower in filtered water samples compared to unfiltered water samples (p
< 0.001; Table 2). This is notable as the POU faucet-mounted filters
utilized in this study are not certified to remove total coliform, or any
microbes. However, while total coliform concentrations were reduced
by the POU filters, total coliform was not always fully eliminated:
approximately 25 % of filtered samples had coliform present, and
therefore exceeded the MCL of 0 MPN (i.e. absent). Total coliform
removal was not unexpected, given that POU filtration does not provide
disinfection or a disinfecting residual, and past work has indicated that
influent groundwater microbiology is complex and can result in biofilm
development (Mulhern et al., 2021). This work similarly suggests that
faucet-mounted POU filters alone are unlikely to provide sufficient
protection from fecal indicator bacteria and associated gastrointestinal
pathogens in untreated tap water from private wells. While all collected
samples were analyzed for E. coli, statistical analysis was not performed
on this constituent as no filtered samples contained E. coli and it was
absent in 96 % of all collected samples.
4.5. Comparing water quality in filtered and unfiltered samples: Filter
performance over time
In addition to comparing paired filtered and unfiltered water sam­
ples, a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was also performed on paired filtered
samples collected at the two- and four-week study mark in order to
better understand how filter performance may change over time. There
were no statistically significant differences in constituent concentrations
two-weeks and four-weeks after filter installation for the majority of the
tested constituents (p > 0.05). Concentrations of As and Zn were sta­
tistically significantly greater in filtered samples collected at the two-
week mark compared to those collected at the four-week mark (p <
0.05). When comparing only unfiltered sample pairs, As was also sta­
tistically significantly greater in samples at the two-week mark
compared to the samples at the four-week mark (p = 0.0020), while
there was no statistically significant difference in Zn concentration be­
tween the two sample dates (p = 0.68). Inversely, concentrations of Se
were statistically significantly lower in filtered samples collected at the
two-week mark compared to the four-week mark (p = 0.01), while Se
concentrations in unfiltered samples were not statistically significantly
different between sampling dates (p = 0.45). No samples exceeded
SDWA recommendations for any of the three constituents.
4.6. Survey responses and filter user experience
All study participants completed the provided survey (n = 21).
Despite detection of contaminants at 60 % of taps (Table 1), and that 19
participants (90 %) previously received VAHWQP home tap water
quality data indicating high concentrations of Pb and/or Fe, over half of
8
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
survey respondents (62 %) trusted their home tap water prior to the
beginning of the study and 67 % reported using their tap water as a
drinking water source. However, 67 % of survey respondents did report
aesthetic issues with their taps prior to implementing the POU filter,
including issues of unpleasant taste and/or odor. After filter installation
and use, 67 % of survey respondents reported trusting their tap water
and the majority of respondents (81 %) reported that they had no
aesthetic concerns with their drinking water while using the filter,
however, only 57 % of respondents reported drinking the filtered tap
water.
The majority of study participants (76 %) reported using the filter at
least two to ten times per day, but less than half (48 %) of respondents
reported that they liked using the filter and would be willing to buy
future replacement cartridges. Several study participants had to install
the POU filters on their secondary tap because the age and/or model of
their primary tap faucet fixture made filter installation impossible an
issue which could represent a barrier to POU faucet filter adoption in
homes. While not directly asked about filter flowrate in the survey, 19 %
of respondents reported in an open-ended final question that the filter
flow rate was too slow and 14 % of respondents reported that the filter
was too bulky. Slow filter flowrate may relate to premature filter clog­
ging, as was demonstrated in Carvajal-Nigro et al., 2022 when POU
pitcher filters, using treatment mechanisms similar to the POU faucet
filters in this study, experienced reduced flow rate and clogging after
being exposed to water with Fe concentrations over 300 ppb. Over 50 %
of unfiltered samples in this study yielded Fe concentrations of over 300
ppb. Collection of these survey data illustrates the critical need to pair
quantitative and qualitative data when considering water quality in­
terventions: although the filters did consistently reduce contaminants of
concern and improve aesthetics, widespread adoption is unlikely if flow
rates are inadequate and filter use is impractical and/or filter installa­
tion is impossible.
4.7. Study limitations
The present study relied on a citizen science paradigm: study par­
ticipants installed and used faucet-mounted POU filters and collected
their own drinking water quality samples from two taps in their homes.
Therefore, this study assumes that filters were installed correctly for the
duration of the study, and were used as intended under typical condi­
tions every day, and that drinking water samples were collected as per
the distributed instructions. Though it is possible that participants did
not follow instructions, this collection strategy is quite common amongst
home drinking water studies in the United States (Pieper et al., 2015;
Pieper et al., 2018; Mulhern and Gibson, 2020; Patton et al., 2020), and
does mimic typical, as opposed to expert, sample collection perfor­
mance. Further, over 90 % of study participants previously participated
in VAHWQP private well water testing and therefore had some famil­
iarity with sample collection prior to participating in the study. It is
worth noting that although participation in state well water education
programs is associated with subsequent improvements in well stew­
ardship (Benham et al., 2016), many of these homeowners still had
water that did not fully meet SDWA standards, suggesting that education
is not sufficient to improve home drinking water in private systems.
Identification of the contributions of specific filter failure modes (e.g.
quantifying clogging) was not within the scope of the paper. This study
also did not assess filter performance based on the quantity of water that
was filtered through the device (i.e. filters were not challenged using
known spikes). It is always critical to note that water quality in envi­
ronmental samples, in this case groundwater, can be extremely variable.
Private well water in particular is notoriously complex and variable
across geologies, system design, and premise plumbing characteristics,
and the water quality presented in this study represents only three days'
worth of observations over a four-week time period. In addition, the
present effort only examined 21 homes, a relatively small given the
percentage of the United States population that relies on private well
H. Patton et al.
water. However, this small sample size is representative of the chal­
lenges associated with recruiting participants from rural areas to collect
multiple in-home water samples for multiple days over a month-long
period. Household recruitment in similar studies has comprised 9 to
24 homes (Pieper et al., 2018; Mulhern and Gibson, 2020; Patton et al.,
2020; Mulhern et al., 2021; Cohen et al., 2022). Although the systems in
the present study were sited within similar geologies, influent water
varied considerably, which does suggest that findings are relatively
robust (Table 1). However, longitudinal testing is strongly recom­
mended, i.e. testing beyond one month. Though this will likely create
difficulties in recruitment and participant retention, it is critical to
examine issues of long term maintenance and performance.
5. Conclusions
In 21 homes with private wells, drinking water filtered by
homeowner-installed faucet-mounted POU filters had statistically
significantly lower concentrations of Total Coliform bacteria, Ba, Cd, Cr,
U, Cu, Pb, Al, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Sr than paired unfiltered water samples.
Removal of Pb in filtered samples was comparable to levels seen in other
studies assessing POU effectiveness in removing Pb in home tap water
(typically from a municipal source). Although significant removal of Fe
and Mn, as well as other common aesthetic contaminants, suggests that
faucet-mounted filters may have promising applications in private well
water treatment, several important broader limitations remain: these
filters do not provide complete protection from microbial contaminants,
high concentrations of contaminants in source water can alter filter
effectiveness and flowrate over time (i.e., due to rapid loading), and
some constituent concentrations such as Na can actually be elevated in
filtered water. Such factors may impede adoption of such POU filters by
homeowners. To inform and support the use of POU filters for drinking
water treatment in homes served by wells, further investigation should
focus on the effects of unfiltered source water quality on filter perfor­
mance; filter flowrate and design; and user knowledge and preferences.
Such work can also assist in defining typical waterborne exposure pat­
terns in homes served by private wells.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167252.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hannah Patton: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original
draft. Leigh-Anne Krometis: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Proj­
ect administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft. Erin
Ling: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project
administration, Writing – review & editing. Alasdair Cohen: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Emily
Sarver: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing
– review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Jeffrey Parks for the metals
water quality analysis, Dr. Laura Lehmann for laboratory management
assistance, and Mrs. Laura Eanes for administrative assistance. The
9
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
authors would also like to extend thanks to the Virginia Cooperative
Extension agents who helped in the dissemination of information about
the study to eligible study participants. The authors would like to thank
Teldia and Joe Haywood for their help in recruiting study participants,
and graduate students Kathleen Hohweiler and Charles Sterling for their
help with sampling trips and sample analysis. This work was supported
by the Roop & Kavita Mahajan Award from the Institute for Critical
Technology and Applied Science at Virginia Tech; and the 2020 Com­
munity Conservation Program Grant from the Virginia Environmental
Endowment, Inc. [grant number 20-601].
References
Allevi, R.P., Krometis, L.-A., Hagedorn, C., Benham, B., Lawrence, A.H., Ling, E.J.,
Ziegler, P.E., 2013. Quantitative analysis of microbial contamination in private
drinking water supply systems. J. Water Health 11 (2), 244–255. https://doi.org/
10.2166/wh.2013.152.
APHA/AWWA/WEF, 1998. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater
(20th ed.). American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C.
Arcipowski, E., Schwartz, J., Davenport, L., Hayes, M., Nolan, T., 2017. Clean water,
clean life: promoting healthier, accessible water in rural Appalachia. J. Contemp.
Water Res. Edu. 161 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.3248.x.
Benham, B., Ling, E., Zeigler, P., Krometis, L.-A., 2016. What’s in your water?: critical
evolution of the Virginia household water quality program and Virginia master well
owner network. J. Hum. Sci. Ext. 4 (1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.54718/
ATYW3374.
Bosscher, V., Lytle, D.A., Schock, M.R., Porter, A., Del Toral, M., 2019. POU water filters
effectively reduce lead in drinking water: a demonstration field study in Flint,
Michigan. J. Env. Sci. Health A 54, 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10934529.2019.1611141.
Carvajal-Nigro, R.J., Purchase, J.M., Pieper, K.J., Katner, A., Edwards, M., 2022. Iron
clogging of lead-certified point-of-use pitcher filters. Environ. Eng. Sci. 39 (7),
587–597. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2021.0331.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014. Private Ground Water Wells.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/private/wells/index.html#print
(accessed December 12, 2022).
Cohen, A., Rasheduzzaman, M., Darling, A., Krometis, L.-A., Edwards, M., Brown, T.,
Ahmed, T., Wettstone, E., Pholwat, S., Taniuchi, M., Rogawski McQuad, E.T., 2022.
Bottled and well water quality in a small Central Appalachian community:
household-level analysis of enteric pathogens, inorganic chemicals, and health
outcomes in rural southwest Virginia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 (14),
8610. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148610.
Colford Jr., J.M., Wade, T.J., Sandhu, S.K., Wright, C.C., Lee, S., Shaw, S., Fox, K.,
Burns, S., Benker, A., Brookhart, M.A., Van Der Laan, M.J., Levy, D.A., 2005.
A randomized controlled trial of in-home drinking water intervention to reduce
gastrointestinal illness. Am. J. Epidemiol. 161 (5), 472–482. https://doi.org/
10.1093/aje/kwi067.
Colford Jr., J.M., Hilton, J.F., Wright, C.C., Arnold, B.F., Saha, S., Wade, T.J., Scott, J.,
Eisenberg, J.N.S., 2009. The Sonoma water evaluation trial: a randomized drinking
water intervention trial to reduce gastrointestinal illness in older adults. Am. J.
Public Health 99 (11), 1988–1995. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.153619.
Cook, N., Sarver, E., Krometis, L.-A., 2015. Putting corporate social responsibility to
work in mining communities: exploring community needs for central Appalachian
wastewater treatment. Resources. 4 (2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.3390/
resources4020185.
Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K.,
Barber, N.L., Linsey, K.S., 2018. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015.
In: (Circular 1441). USGS Publications Warehouse.
Flanagan, S.V., Spayd, S.E., Procopio, N.A., Chillrud, S.N., Braman, S., Zheng, Y., 2016.
Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: impact of the New Jersey private well
testing act on household testing and mitigation behavior. Sci. Total Environ. 562,
999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.196.
Gibson, J.M., Pieper, K.J., 2017. Strategies to improve private-well water quality: a North
Carolina perspective. Environ. Health Perspect. 125 (7) https://doi.org/10.1289/
EHP890.
Herkert, N.J., Merrill, J., Peter, C., Bollinger, D., Zhang, S., Hoffman, K., Ferguson, P.L.,
Knappe, D.R.U., Stapleton, H.M., 2020. Assessing the effectiveness of point-of-use
residential drinking water filters for perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Environ. Sci.
Tech. Lett. 7, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004.
Hexemer, A.M., Pintar, K., Bird, T.M., Zentner, S.E., Garcia, H.P., Pollari, F., 2008. An
investigation of bacteriological and chemical water quality and the barriers to
private well water sampling in a Southwestern Ontario Community. J. Water Health
6 (4), 521–525. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2008.070.
Hughes, J., Whisnant, R., Weller, L., Eskaf, S., Richardson, M., Morrissey, S., Altz-
Stamm, B., 2005. Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Appalachia: An
Analysis of Capital Funding and Funding Gaps. http://www.arc.gov/assets/research
_reports/drinkingwaterandwastewaterinfrastructure.pdf (accessed March 18, 2022).
Javidi, A., Pierce, G., 2018. U.S. households’ perception of drinking water as unsafe and
its consequences: examining alternative choices to the tap. Water Resour. Res. 54
(9), 6100–6113. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022186.
H. Patton et al.
Jones, A.Q., Dewey, C.E., Doré, K., Majowicz, S.E., McEwen, S.A., David, W.-T., Eric, M.,
Carr, D.J., Henson, S.J., et al., 2006. Public perceptions of drinking water: a postal
survey of residents with private water supplies. BMC Public Health 6 (94). https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-94.
Knobeloch, L., 2009. 2008–9 Survey of Private Well Owners. Wisconsin Department of
Health Services. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/Groundwater/
GCCMinutes/PrivateWellOwnerSurvey201111.pdf (accessed March 18, 2022).
Law, R.K., Murphy, M.W., Choudhary, E., 2017. Private well groundwater quality in
West Virginia, USA-2010. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 559–565. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.018.
Lee, D., Murphy, H.M., 2020. Private wells and rural health: groundwater contaminants
of emerging concern. Curr. Environ. Health. Rep. 7, 129–139. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40572-020-00267-4.
Mueller, J.T., Gasteyer, S., 2021. The widespread and unjust drinking water and clean
water crisis in the United States. Nat. Commun. 12, 3544. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-021-23898-z.
Mulhern, R., Gibson, J.M., 2020. Under-sink activated carbon water filters effectively
remove lead from private well water for over six months. Water. 12, 3584. https://
doi.org/10.3390/w12123584.
Mulhern, R., Stallard, M., Zanib, H., Stewart, J., Sozzi, E., Gibson, J.M., 2021. Are carbon
water filters safe for private wells? Evaluating the occurrence of microbial indicator
organisms in private well water treated by point-of-use activated carbon block
filters. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheh.2021.113852.
Mulhern, R., Grubbs, B., Gray, K., Gibson, J.M., 2022. User experience of point-of-use
water treatment for private wells in North Carolina: implications for outreach and
well stewardship. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.150448.
Patton, H., Krometis, L.-A., Sarver, E., 2020. Springing for safe water: drinking water
quality and source selection in Central Appalachian communities. Water. 12 (3),
888. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030888.
Pieper, K.J., Krometis, L.-A., Gallagher, D.L., Benham, B.L., Edwards, M., 2015. Incidence
of waterborne lead in private drinking water systems in Virginia. J. Water Health 13
(3), 897–908. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2015.275.
Pieper, K., Krometis, L., Gallagher, D., Benham, B., 2016. Simultaneous influence of
geology and system design on drinking water quality in private systems. J. Environ.
Health 79 (2), e1–e9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26330530.
10
Science of the Total Environment 906 (2024) 167252
Pieper, K.J., Nystrom, V.E., Parks, J., Jennings, K., Faircloth, H., Morgan, J.B.,
Bruckner, J., Edwards, M.A., 2018. Elevated lead in water of private wells poses
health risks: case study in M County, North Carolina. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52,
4350–4357. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05812.
Rosa, G., Clasen, T., 2010. Estimating the scope of household water treatment in low- and
medium-income countries. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 82 (2), 289–300. https://doi.org/
10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0382.
Shiber, J.G., 2005. Arsenic in domestic well water and health in central appalachia, USA.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 160, 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-005-2832-y.
Sobsey, M.D., Stauber, C.E., Casanova, L.M., Brown, J.M., Elliott, M.A., 2008. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 42 (12), 4261–4267. https://doi.org/10.1021/es702746n.
Swistock, B., Clark, J., Boser, S., Oleson, D., Galford, A., Micsky, G., Madden, M., 2015.
Issues associated with the use of untreated roadside springs as a source of drinking
water. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 156, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-
704X.2015.03206.x.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer
Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Sodium. https://www.epa.go
v/sites/production/files/201409/documents/support_cc1_sodium_dwreport.pdf
(accessed on September 4, 2019).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Flint, MI filter challenge assessment. https
://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/filter_challenge_assesme
nt_field_report_-_epa_v5.pdf (accessed March 18, 2022).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. EPA 815-F-18-022: Module 5: Conducting
Sampling and Interpreting Results 2-Step Sampling at the Tap. U.S. EPA. https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-09/documents/module_5_3ts_2step_sam
pling_protocol_508.pdf (accessed on August 8, 2019).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/nati
onal-primary-drinking-water-regulations (accessed on March 10, 2023).
World Health Organization, 2018. A Global Overview of National Regulations and
Standards for Drinking-water Quality. World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Wu, J., Cao, M., Tong, D., Finkelstein, Z., 2021. A critical review of point-of-use drinking
water treatment in the United States. NPJ Clean Water. 4, 40. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41545-021-00128-z.