NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Over 43 million people in the United States rely on private drinking water supplies for domestic purposes, yet 20% of water wells are potentially contaminated in some form. In Pennsylvania, 2-3 million rural residents use private water supplies for domestic purposes, yet Pennsylvania has no state-wide well drilling standards or water quality testing requirements for private water sources. The lack of implemented standards and monitoring hides potential water supply and quality issues and may affect water trust, health, and overall water insecurity. Therefore, we conducted two interlinked systematic reviews to understand (1) social perspectives around water insecurity among private water supply users in Pennsylvania and (2) associations between private water sources and health outcomes. Using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest, Compendex, and Google Scholar, we identified 10 articles (n1) for the first review and 15 for the second (n2). Results indicated water insecurity relates to perceived and measured water quality problems. Common sources of water quality issues were chemical contamination (n1 = 5, n2 = 8), biological contamination (n1 = 3, n2 = 7), and proximity to shale gas drilling (n1 = 6, n2 = 4). Four articles measured health effects including thyroid health, risk for Parkinson's disease, and effects related to TCE/PCB contamination and proximity to shale gas drilling, while others discussed poor water quality potentially causing gastrointestinal illnesses. These reviews indicate opportunities for increased water testing for private water users and education for water quality health risks. Emerging literature emphasizes a surge of research interest in examining the social perceptions and health effects of water in Pennsylvania. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Water, Health, and SanitationHuman Water > Water GovernanceScience of Water > Water Quality.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.