Flanagan Sara V, Spayd Steven E, Procopio Nicholas A, Marvinney Robert G, Smith Andrew E, Chillrud Steven N, Braman Stuart, Zheng Yan
Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA; Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, 55 W 125th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420, USA.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420, USA.
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Aug 15;562:1019-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.217. Epub 2016 Apr 23.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic element often concentrated in groundwater at levels unsafe for human consumption. Private well water in the United States is mostly unregulated by federal and state drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the over 13 million U.S. households regularly depending on private wells for their water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There is a consistent graded association with health outcomes at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S. Differential exposure to environmental risk may be contributing to this persistent SES-health gradient. Environmental justice advocates cite overwhelming evidence that income and other SES measures are consistently inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions including pollutants, toxins, and their impacts. Here we use private well household surveys from two states to investigate the association between SES and risks for arsenic exposure, examining the potentially cumulative effects of residential location, testing and treatment behavior, and psychological factors influencing behavior. We find that the distribution of natural arsenic hazard in the environment is socioeconomically random. There is no evidence that higher SES households are avoiding areas with arsenic or that lower SES groups are disproportionately residing in areas with arsenic. Instead, disparities in exposure arise from differing rates of protective action, primarily testing well water for arsenic, and secondly treating or avoiding contaminated water. We observe these SES disparities in behavior as well as in the psychological factors that are most favorable to these behaviors. Assessment of risk should not be limited to the spatial occurrence of arsenic alone. It is important that social vulnerability factors are incorporated into risk modeling and identifying priority areas for intervention, which should include strategies that specifically target socioeconomically vulnerable groups as well as all the conditions which cause these disparities in testing and treatment behavior.
砷是一种天然存在的有毒元素,其在地下水中的浓度往往会达到对人类健康有害的水平。在美国,私人井水大多不受联邦和州饮用水标准的监管。超过1300万美国住户日常依赖私人井水,他们有责任确保所用水源可安全饮用。在美国,社会经济地位(SES)的各个层面都与健康结果存在持续的分级关联。不同的环境风险暴露情况可能是导致这种持续的社会经济地位与健康之间梯度差异的原因。环境正义倡导者指出,大量证据表明,收入和其他社会经济地位衡量指标与接触次优环境条件(包括污染物、毒素及其影响)始终呈负相关。在此,我们利用来自两个州的私人井水住户调查,研究社会经济地位与砷暴露风险之间的关联,考察居住地点、检测和处理行为以及影响行为的心理因素的潜在累积效应。我们发现,环境中天然砷危害的分布在社会经济层面是随机的。没有证据表明社会经济地位较高的住户在避开有砷的地区,也没有证据表明社会经济地位较低的群体过多地居住在有砷的地区。相反,暴露差异源于不同的保护行动率,主要是对井水进行砷检测,其次是处理或避开受污染的水。我们在行为以及最有利于这些行为的心理因素方面都观察到了这些社会经济地位差异。风险评估不应仅限于砷的空间分布。将社会脆弱性因素纳入风险建模并确定优先干预领域很重要,这应包括专门针对社会经济弱势群体的策略以及所有导致检测和处理行为出现这些差异的条件。