ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Quality of Groundwater Used for Public Supply in the Continental United States: A Comprehensive Assessment

  • Kenneth Belitz*
    Kenneth Belitz
    U.S. Geological Survey, Water Mission Area, 112 Johnson Road, Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741, United States
    *Email: [email protected]. Phone: 978-341-8974.
  • Miranda S. Fram
    Miranda S. Fram
    U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United States
  • Bruce D. Lindsey
    Bruce D. Lindsey
    U.S. Geological Survey, Water Mission Area, 215 Limekiln Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070, United States
  • Paul E. Stackelberg
    Paul E. Stackelberg
    U.S. Geological Survey, Water Mission Area, 425 Jordan Road, Troy, New York 12180, United States
  • Laura M. Bexfield
    Laura M. Bexfield
    U.S. Geological Survey, New Mexico Water Science Center, 6700 Edith Blvd NE, Bldg B, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113, United States
  • Tyler D. Johnson
    Tyler D. Johnson
    U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 4165 Spruance Road, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92101, United States
  • Bryant C. Jurgens
    Bryant C. Jurgens
    U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United States
  • James A. Kingsbury
    James A. Kingsbury
    U.S. Geological Survey, Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center, 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100, Nashville, Tennessee 37211, United States
  • Peter B. McMahon
    Peter B. McMahon
    U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center, Denver Federal Center, Bldg 53, MS 415, Denver, Colorado 80225, United States
  • , and 
  • Neil M. Dubrovsky
    Neil M. Dubrovsky
    U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United States
Cite this: ACS EST Water 2022, 2, 12, 2645–2656
Publication Date (Web):October 21, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00390

Not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2022 by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.
  • Open Access

Article Views

4125

Altmetric

-

Citations

LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (6 MB)
Supporting Info (7)»

Abstract

The presence of contaminants in a source water can constrain its suitability for drinking. The quality of groundwater used for public supply was assessed in 25 principal aquifers (PAs) that account for 84% of groundwater pumped for public supply in the U.S. (89.6 million people on a proportional basis). Each PA was sampled across its lateral extent using an equal-area grid, typically with 60 wells per PA. Samples were analyzed for 502 constituents, of which 374 had either a regulatory or nonregulatory human health benchmark (HHB). Nationally, elevated concentrations (relative to HHBs) of geogenic constituents have a larger effect than anthropogenic constituents, as indicated by three metrics: detection frequency, 35% versus 8.1%; prevalence (based on area), 41% versus 6.4%; and population potentially affected, 31.2 million versus 7.1 million. Prevalence of any constituent at elevated concentrations was high─40 to 75%─in PAs comprising unconsolidated sediment (eight PAs) and sandstone or interbedded sandstones and carbonates (four PAs) in the West and Central Interior. Prevalence was lower─15 to 35%─in PAs comprising sediment and sedimentary rocks along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts (four PAs), carbonates distributed across the continental U.S. (seven PAs), and hard rock (two PAs).

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence

Synopsis

Naturally occurring geogenic constituents have a larger effect on groundwater quality used for public supply in the U.S. than anthropogenic constituents.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The presence of contaminants in a source water can constrain its suitability for drinking. (1) In the United States (U.S.), drinking water is provided primarily through public supply systems that can rely on surface water, groundwater, or a combination of the two. (2,3) On a proportional basis, ∼162 million people served by public supply systems in the U.S. rely on surface water and ∼107 million rely on groundwater. (3) An additional ∼37 million are self-supplied and dependent almost entirely on groundwater. (3,4) This paper focuses on the quality of untreated groundwater used as a source of public supply in the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). Toward that end, several questions arise: Which constituents are most prevalent at elevated concentrations? How many people are potentially affected? What are the hydrogeologic and geochemical characteristics of the aquifers where elevated concentrations are observed? These questions are addressed at the scale of principal aquifers (PAs) and for the CONUS. PAs are regionally extensive aquifers or aquifer systems that can provide large volumes of water for human use. (5) The answers to these questions can be used by managers responsible for providing safe drinking water, regulators considering which constituents might require additional scrutiny, and researchers seeking to identify groundwater quality issues of relevance to human health.
Constituent concentrations can be evaluated relative to human health benchmarks (HHB). Some contaminants have regulatory benchmarks─maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)─established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (6) under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). (7) MCLs are applicable to tap water provided by public suppliers and are legally enforceable, but states can establish more stringent standards. The quality of tap water can differ from the quality of source waters because of mixing and(or) treatment. Some constituents, although unregulated, have HHBs that can be used to characterize the quality of a source water for drinking supply. (8,9) The occurrence of unregulated constituents at concentrations above HHBs is also relevant to consideration of whether MCLs should be established. (10)
The work presented in this paper was conducted as a part of the USGS National Water Quality Assessment project (NAWQA). (11) In its first two decades (1991–2012), NAWQA groundwater studies included regional-scale assessments and process-oriented investigations. The regional-scale assessments focused primarily on shallow groundwater, that is, the monitoring of wells near the water table in areas with either agricultural or urban land use (12) and domestic wells in selected areas. (13) NAWQA also sampled public supply wells (932), (14) but ∼40% of the wells were selected for studies of contaminant transport through aquifers at local scales (15) or through drinking water treatment systems. (16) Hence, those wells were not generally suitable for a national assessment of ambient conditions. In addition, the public supply wells were not systematically sampled for a common set of constituents.
In its third decade (2013–2021), NAWQA implemented PA studies to systematically evaluate the quality of groundwater used for public supply. (11) In most parts of the U.S., public supply wells are deeper than domestic wells. (17) The USGS has identified 62 PAs, with 57 in the CONUS. (5) NAWQA focused on 25 PAs (Figure 1, Table 1), which collectively account for 84% of the public supply pumping in the U.S. (3) Each PA was sampled across its full extent using a spatially distributed equal-area approach, typically with 60 wells per PA. A spatially distributed sampling design allows for drawing inference about the PA and facilitates the synthesis of results across PAs. (18) Samples from each well were analyzed for 502 regulated and unregulated constituents and indicators of geochemical condition.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Map showing principal aquifers (PAs) and wells. The numbers posted on the map identify the PAs that are explained in Table 1.

Table 1. Principal Aquifers Evaluated in This Studya
map IDabbreviationprincipal aquifergroup
1cacbCA Coastal Basinswestern unconsolidated
2cvalCentral Valleywestern unconsolidated
3clptColumbia Plateau Basaltshard rock
4bnrfBasin and Range Fillwestern unconsolidated
5bnrcBasin and Range Carbonatescarbonates
6coplColorado Plateauinterior sandstone/carbonate
7hpHigh Plainswestern unconsolidated
8strv-wStream Valley - WestStream Valley (unconsolidated)
9riogRio Grandewestern unconsolidated
10ed-trinEdwards–Trinityinterior sandstone/carbonate
11edwrdsEdwardscarbonates
12trinTrinityinterior sandstone/carbonate
13ozrkOzarkscarbonates
14metxMS Embayment, TX Coastal UplandsGulf and Atlantic coastal clastics
15secpSoutheast Coastal PlainGulf and Atlantic coastal clastics
16strv-eStream Valley - EastStream Valley (unconsolidated)
17cmorCambrian–Ordovicianinterior sandstone/carbonate
18glacGlacialglacial (unconsolidated)
19vrpdValley and Ridge, Piedmont and Blue Ridgecarbonates
20piedPiedmont–Blue Ridge Crystallinehard rock
21nacpNorth Atlantic Coastal PlainGulf and Atlantic coasts
22surfSurficialcarbonates
23biscBiscaynecarbonates
24florFloridancarbonates
25clowCoastal LowlandsGulf and Atlantic coasts
a

Map ID on Figure 1. See Supporting Information Table S1 and Section S1 for additional information.

At a national scale, there are several ways to aggregate data collected at the PA scale. A common approach is to use detection frequency for all wells; this has the advantage of simplicity but is strictly applicable only if each well carries equal weight. (18) The 25 PAs evaluated in this paper differ in areal extent and in the number of people dependent on groundwater for public drinking supply (Table S1). Hence, one needs to account for the differences between PAs.
The focus of this paper is constituents that may affect human health, so the primary metrics used are prevalence of and population potentially affected by elevated concentrations. Elevated concentrations are defined in the Methods section. Prevalence, also known as aquifer-scale proportion, is defined here as the proportion of the resource with concentrations above a specified threshold. (18) A population-based metric can be particularly useful for identifying constituents that are prevalent at elevated concentrations in small areas that contain a large number of people dependent on groundwater. (19) Prevalence and population potentially affected can be computed for an individual constituent, a class of constituents, or all constituents.
Selected results from the NAWQA PA studies have been communicated at national and large regional scales. At a national scale, NAWQA has reported on individual constituents detected at concentrations of potential health concern, including manganese, (20) fluoride, (21) strontium, (22) and lithium. (23) NAWQA has also reported on constituents, which might or might not be detected at concentrations of concern, but which have not previously been sampled for at a national-scale at the depth zone used for public supply, including methane, (24) polonium-210 and lead-210, (25) hormones and pharmaceuticals, (26) pesticides and pesticide degradates, (27) and volatile organic compounds. (28) A systematic assessment of groundwater age has also been published. (29) Most of the papers describing individual constituents at a national scale were published prior to the completion of sampling of all wells. At large regional to subcontinental scales, NAWQA has reported on multiple constituents in PAs along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, (30,31) the Glacial aquifer, (32) and six PAs of the western U.S. (33) The quality of groundwater used for public supply in California has also been reported as a part of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment program (GAMA), a collaborative effort by the USGS and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (19,34) This paper extends the assessment to the full suite of constituents, across all 25 PAs sampled, and evaluates the potential impact in terms of the number of people dependent on groundwater with elevated concentrations.
This paper complements previously published work that relies on regulatory data for finished water as compiled by the USEPA. Several papers have reported on water quality violations reported to the Safe Drinking Water Information System, as required by the SDWA: coliform, (35) nitrate, (36) and any type of violation. (37) Other papers have reported on the concentrations of arsenic as compiled by the USEPA for its third Six-Year Review. (38,39) This paper evaluates untreated groundwater rather than finished water, includes constituents not compiled by the USEPA (those with nonregulatory HHBs and geochemical indicators), and evaluates water quality in the context of principal aquifers.

Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Equal-area grids were used to design the groundwater sampling networks. The basic approach is to divide a PA into cells of equal area and randomly select one public supply well per cell. (40) Application of the equal-area grid approach results in a set of wells that are spatially distributed across a PA, with each well accounting for an equal area of aquifer. Hence, prevalence at the PA scale is equal to detection frequency in the network of wells. Prevalence at the national scale requires accounting for the relative area of each PA (area-weighted detection frequency). Additional information about the PA networks is provided in USGS Data Series Reports (41−45) and in the Supporting Information.
A total of 1458 sites distributed across 25 networks were sampled using nationally consistent methods designed to obtain samples that are representative of environmental conditions. (46−48) All samples were collected at or close to the wellhead and prior to treatment or blending. The depth and other characteristics of each well were also acquired (Table S2). Samples were analyzed for 502 parameters (Table S3). Samples were also collected for quality assurance and quality control (QAQC). Additional information about methods, well characteristics, water quality data, and analysis of QAQC data, including data presented in this paper, have been published in USGS Data Series Reports. (41−45) Age-tracer data, computations based on the data, and models of groundwater age distribution have also been published. (29)
For the purposes of characterizing PAs, samples were classified with respect to climate, land use, depth, groundwater age, redox condition, and pH (Table S2). Climate classification─arid, semiarid, semihumid, and humid─was based on the aridity index. (49−51) Land use, based on a 500 m radius circular buffer, (52) was classified as percent urban, agricultural, or natural. (53) Groundwater age was characterized as percent Anthropocene (1953 to present), Holocene (12 000 years ago to 1953), or Pleistocene (>12 000 years ago). (29) The Anthropocene is not currently (2022) recognized as a formal division of geologic time; it is used here to indicate a time when human activities have had significant effects on the global environment. Redox condition was characterized as oxic, mixed, or anoxic. (54,55) The pH was measured in the field.
Water quality was assessed by comparing constituent concentrations to regulatory and nonregulatory HHBs (Table S3). Regulatory benchmarks, as used here, are defined by the USEPA and include MCLs, action levels, and screening levels; (6) these are referred to as MCL constituents. Nonregulatory benchmarks include human health benchmarks for pesticides (HHBPs) defined by the USEPA (8) and health-based screening levels (HBSLs) defined by the USGS. (9) Computations of HHBPs and HBSLs incorporate contaminant toxicity values, which can be known with greater or lesser certainty. Tier-1 constituents, as defined here, include all HHBP constituents and HBSL constituents that are listed in either the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database (56) or the USEPA Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories (DWSHA) tables. (57) Tier-2 constituents, as defined here, include constituents with an HBSL that are not listed in either the IRIS database or DWSHA tables, degradates of pesticides with an HHB, (27) polonium-210 and lead-210, (25) and hormones and pharmaceuticals. (26)
HHBs were used to classify concentrations as high, moderate, or low. Concentrations above an HHB are defined as high. The thresholds for classification of concentrations as moderate depends on whether a constituent is inorganic or organic. The thresholds are different because inorganic constituents are typically present under natural conditions, whereas organic constituents are generally introduced by human activity, and thus, we established a lower threshold for organics. For consistency with prior GAMA and NAWQA studies, concentrations are defined as moderate if they exceed one-half or one-tenth the HHB for inorganic or organic constituents, respectively. Concentrations are defined as low if they are equal to or less than the threshold used to define moderate concentrations. Concentrations are defined as elevated if they are either high or moderate.
This paper focuses generally on constituents detected at elevated concentrations (Table S4) and specifically on those that were frequently detected (>1%). At a prevalence less than 1%, constituents at elevated concentrations are more likely to be missed than detected in any given network of 60 wells (see Section S6 for additional discussion). Relative concentration data (concentration in sample divided by HHB) for constituents detected at elevated concentrations are presented in Table S5. Constituents without a benchmark, those that were detected only at low concentrations, and those that were not detected at any concentration are minimally discussed.
The potential impact of a constituent (or group of constituents) was evaluated in terms of the groundwater-dependent population potentially affected by elevated concentrations; for brevity, this is referred to as the population potentially affected. The groundwater-dependent population is defined as the number of people dependent on public supply multiplied by the proportion of public supply that is derived from groundwater. (19) For each PA (Table S1), the groundwater-dependent population was derived from a 1 km resolution map for the CONUS. (3) The population potentially affected was obtained by multiplying the groundwater-dependent population by the prevalence of a constituent (or group of constituents) at elevated concentrations. At the scale of CONUS, the population potentially affected is obtained by summing the PA-scale values.
The population potentially affected, as computed in this paper, is not necessarily the same as the number of people receiving tap water with elevated concentrations. There are several reasons why the two numbers can differ. This paper evaluates the quality of groundwater used as a source for public supply, and source water can be treated or blended with other water sources prior to entering a public supply distribution system. Treatment might or might not change the concentrations of a constituent. Some constituents, such as lead (58) and disinfection byproducts, (37) can be introduced after groundwater is pumped from a well. Other sources could include surface water and/or groundwater from other wells. In addition, the population potentially affected is computed at the scale of a PA and does not account for the nonuniform distribution of people across the lateral extent of a PA nor the nonuniform distribution of constituents at elevated concentrations. The population potentially affected, however, does account for differences between PAs. The difference between PAs could be the size of the groundwater-dependent population and/or the prevalence of a constituent (or group of constituents) at elevated concentrations. One can characterize the population potentially affected as a population-weighted detection frequency.
Co-occurrence of constituents at elevated concentrations can affect the computation of metrics for groups of constituents. For example, the detection frequency for geogenic constituents at elevated concentrations at a national scale need not be equal to the sum of the detection frequencies for individual constituents.
All presented metrics (detection frequency, prevalence, population potentially affected) are for elevated concentrations. Unless otherwise noted, “at elevated concentration” is implied throughout.

Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Constituents Detected at Elevated Concentrations─National Scale

Groundwater samples were analyzed for 502 constituents, of which 374 have a benchmark (Table 2). The number of geogenic constituents with a benchmark is relatively small (30) compared with the number of anthropogenic constituents with a benchmark (344). Yet, the number of constituents detected at elevated concentrations was larger for geogenic constituents (22) than for anthropogenic constituents (16). If the comparison is restricted to unregulated Tier-1 and Tier-2 constituents, the contrast becomes more marked: 11 of 14 geogenic constituents were detected at elevated concentrations compared with seven of 307 anthropogenic constituents. Given the uncertainty associated with Tier-2 benchmarks, this section and several that follow, focus on constituents with an MCL or a Tier-1 benchmark. A discussion of Tier-2 constituents is provided in a subsequent section.
Table 2. Number of Constituents Sampled For, Number of a Constituents with a Benchmark, and How Many Were Detected at Elevated (High or Moderate) Concentrationsa
constituent typeconstituents analyzeddetected elevated
totalMCLTier-1Tier-2MCLTier-1Tier-2
indicators and age tracing21000
geogenic
major and trace elements331274753
radiogenic84034 3
anthropogenic
nutrients62001
volatile organic compounds8529175810
pesticides, degradates225699118112
hormones and pharmaceuticals12400683
all5025312319821711
a

MCL = maximum contaminant level; Tier-1 and Tier-2 benchmarks are described in the text; – , not available.

Sixteen geogenic constituents with an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark were detected at elevated concentrations (Table 2); 10 were frequently detected (Table S4). Six of the 10 frequently detected constituents are trace elements; three─arsenic (15%), fluoride (4.1%), and uranium (3.6%)─have an MCL, and three─manganese (9.3%), molybdenum (3.2%), and strontium (5.9%)─have a Tier-1 benchmark. An additional four are radiogenic constituents with an MCL: adjusted-alpha (5.6%), adjusted-beta (1.1%), and radium-226 + radium-228 (7.4%; MCL is the sum of the two). Six geogenic constituents were infrequently detected: antimony, barium, boron, lead, selenium, and zinc (Table S4).
Twelve anthropogenic constituents with an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark─nitrate and 11 organic constituents─were detected at elevated concentrations (Table 2, Table S4). Only nitrate (6.1%) was frequently detected. Given the relatively low detection frequency of individual organic compounds, their occurrence is considered in aggregate. Organic compounds as a group were detected in 2.7% of the wells.
Geogenic constituents with an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark were detected more frequently than anthropogenic constituents─35% compared with 8.1% (Table S4). There is some co-occurrence between geogenic and anthropogenic constituents: concentrations are elevated for both types in 40 wells (3%). There is greater co-occurrence within the geogenic class: concentrations are elevated for two or more geogenic constituents in 185 wells (13%). The co-occurrence of anthropogenic constituents (nitrate and organics) at elevated concentrations is relatively low (14 wells, 1.0%). The co-occurrence of organic compounds is lower still (4 wells, 0.3%).
If national-scale prevalence is used as a metric (Table S6), then the relative importance of the constituents changes somewhat. Manganese, the second most frequently detected constituent (9.3%), is the most prevalent (17%). The prevalence of manganese at a national scale reflects its high prevalence in the Glacial PA (Table S7), which has a large area (Table S1). Also, with prevalence as a metric, the contrast between geogenic and anthropogenic constituents becomes more pronounced at 41% and 6.4%, respectively.

Population Potentially Affected by Elevated Concentrations of Constituents with an MCL or Tier-1 Benchmark─National Scale

At a national scale, 36.3 million people are potentially affected by one or more constituents that have an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark (Figure 2). The population potentially affected is larger for geogenic constituents than for anthropogenic constituents, 31.3 million versus 7.1 million. In addition, the population potentially affected by geogenic constituents with a Tier-1 benchmark─18.5 million─is relatively large and is more than double the population potentially affected by anthropogenic compounds, either with an MCL or a Tier-1 benchmark. In contrast, the population potentially affected by anthropogenic constituents with a Tier-1 benchmark is relatively small (0.4 million).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Bar charts showing population potentially affected by elevated concentrations for geogenic constituents, anthropogenic constituents, and any constituent, with benchmarks as indicated.

The population potentially affected by each of the frequently detected constituents is shown in Figure 3. Arsenic and manganese have the largest potential impact: the population affected exceeds 10 million for each. The population potentially affected by nitrate, ∼5 million, is about half the value for arsenic or manganese. Four additional geogenic constituents─strontium, radium-226 + radium-228, and adjusted gross alpha─potentially affect a comparable or larger population than nitrate.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Bar charts showing population potentially affected by selected constituents at elevated concentrations.

Population Potentially Affected by Elevated Concentrations of Any Constituent with an MCL or Tier-1 Benchmark─Principal Aquifer Scale

At the scale of a PA, the population potentially affected depends, by definition, on the groundwater-dependent population and prevalence (Figure 4). The groundwater-dependent population in the 25 PAs evaluated is 89.6 million. The groundwater-dependent population is not uniformly distributed: five PAs account for more than half, and an additional four bring the total to three-quarters.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Bar charts showing, for each PA: groundwater-dependent population, prevalence of any constituent at elevated concentrations, and population potentially affected by any constituent at elevated concentrations.

The prevalence of any constituent (with an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark) broadly corresponds to the PA groupings (Figure 4). PA groupings are based primarily on lithology and secondarily on location and climate (see Section S1 for additional discussion). Prevalence is high (40 to 75%) in four PA groups: western unconsolidated, stream valley, glacial, and interior sandstone–carbonate. Prevalence is lower (15 to 35%) in three PA groups: carbonates, Gulf and Atlantic coastal clastics, and hard rock. Some of the PAs with a large prevalence also have large groundwater-dependent populations; many do not.
At the scale of PAs, the population potentially affected ranges from less than ten thousand to more than seven million (Figure 4). The Glacial (18-glac) and CA Coastal Basins (1-cacb) account for one-third of the potentially affected population; both PAs have large groundwater-dependent populations and high prevalence. Two additional PAs (17 cmor and 4-bnrf) bring the total to more than half; both are characterized by high prevalence. Four additional PAs bring the total to more than three-quarters; two of the four (2-cval and 8-strv-w) are in the relatively arid West and have high prevalence, while the other two (24-flor and 25-clow) are in the relatively humid East and have large groundwater-dependent populations.
The population potentially affected broadly reflects the prevalence associated with the PA groupings: 25.7 million in the four PA groups with high prevalence and 10.6 million in the three PA groups with lower prevalence. The contrast occurs despite nearly equal groundwater-dependent populations (45 million and 44 million, respectively).

Prevalence and Population Potentially Affected by Elevated Concentrations, Selected Constituents─Principal Aquifer Scale

This section discusses, at the scale of PAs and CONUS, each constituent with an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark that was frequently detected at elevated concentrations. Given the large number of constituents and PAs, the discussion broadly covers, for each constituent, some of the potential factors affecting elevated concentrations (Figure 5), those PAs where the prevalence is relatively high, and those PAs that account for half of the population potentially affected. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an in-depth analysis of the geochemical processes controlling elevated concentrations. Instead, we relate the occurrence of elevated concentrations at the PA and national scales to factors previously identified in the literature as relevant indicators of geochemical process. For the purposes of discussion, prevalence at the PA scale is defined as relatively high if it exceeds 1.5 times the national detection frequency of elevated concentrations for that constituent (Table S4) and if there are at least two elevated detections in that PA. The prevalence of each constituent, and the population potentially affected, are tabulated in Tables S7 and S8, respectively.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Bar charts showing characteristics of wells, by PA: climate, land use, well depth, groundwater age, redox, and pH.

Arsenic is the constituent most frequently detected at elevated concentrations (Table S4) and that potentially affects the largest number of people (Figure 3). Two common mechanisms for arsenic mobilization in aquifers are desorption from sediments under alkaline, oxic conditions and release from manganese- and iron-oxide grain coatings during their reductive dissolution under anoxic conditions. (59) Of the 216 samples with elevated concentrations, 60% are oxic, 31% are anoxic, 6% are mixed, and 4% are indeterminate. The distribution of pH is consistent with expectation. The average pH of oxic samples with elevated concentrations was 7.7 compared with 7.2 for oxic samples with low concentrations. In contrast, the average pH of anoxic samples with elevated concentrations was 7.5 compared with 7.4 for anoxic samples with low concentrations. Prevalence is relatively high (>22%) in six PAs and exceeds 40% in four western unconsolidated PAs (2-cval, 4-bnrf, 7-hp, and 9-riog) where the climate is arid and oxic conditions are prevalent (Figure 4). In the other two PAs with high prevalence (6-copl and 8-strv-w), there is a relative balance between oxic and reduced conditions (Figure 4). Prevalence is not relatively high in 18-glac, but the population potentially affected is large. Three PAs (4-bnrf, 18-glac, and 2-cval) account for more than half of the population potentially affected by arsenic.
Elevated concentrations of fluoride in groundwater occur when there is a source present in the aquifer and when geochemical conditions are favorable. (21,60) Sources include fluorine-bearing minerals and mixing with geothermal fluids. Geochemical conditions include sodium bicarbonate water, elevated salinity and pH, and precipitation of calcite. These conditions can occur in groundwater with long residence times. The age distribution of samples is consistent with expectations: there is less Anthropocene, less Holocene, and more Pleistocene age groundwater in the 60 samples with elevated concentrations (12%/22%/65%, respectively) than in other samples (32%/39%/29%, respectively). Prevalence is relatively high (>6.1%) in seven PAs distributed across a wide range of hydrogeologic characteristics (4-bnrf, 5-bnrc, 7-hp, 9-riog, 12-trin, 17 cmor, and 21-nacp). Two PAs (17 cmor and 21-nacp) located in the humid East, rather than the arid West, (60) account for more than half of the population potentially affected by fluoride.
Uranium is mobile in groundwater over a wide range of redox and pH conditions. (61) Therefore, the occurrence at elevated concentrations depends on the availability of uranium in the aquifer matrix─typically sediment derived from granites and other silicic igneous rocks─and on the concentrations of other aqueous species, such as dissolved inorganic carbon, which can complex with uranium. (62,63) In addition, uranium concentrations can increase in response to geochemical changes induced by anthropogenic activity. (63,64) Prevalence is relatively high (>5.4%) in four PAs located in the arid to semiarid West (1-cacb, 7-hp, 8-strv-w, and 9-riog), all of which comprise unconsolidated deposits that include sediment derived from silicic igneous sources. Prevalence is particularly high in 7-hp (23%). Prevalence is not relatively high in 25-clow, but the population potentially affected is large. Three PAs (1-cacb, 8-strv-w, and 25-clow) account for more than half of the population potentially affected by uranium.
Manganese, at a national scale, is the most prevalent constituent at elevated concentrations (Table S6). Manganese [Mn(II)] can occur at elevated concentrations in groundwater under moderate to highly reducing conditions if manganese [Mn(IV)] is available from the aquifer matrix. (20) Elevated concentrations of dissolved organic carbon can facilitate the occurrence of elevated concentrations of manganese. These conditions can be found at the distal end of flow paths at shallow depths in areas proximal to streams and in areas of fine-grained sediment with a shallow depth to the water table. Relatively high prevalence (>14%) occurs in 1-cacb and exceeds 30% in three PAs (8-strv-w, 16-strv-e, and 18-glac) where the wells are shallow (Figure 4) and generally proximal to surface water. The 18-glac PA accounts for more than half of the population potentially affected by manganese.
Elevated concentrations of strontium in groundwater can arise from geogenic and anthropogenic sources. (22) Geogenic sources include strontium minerals in carbonate aquifers and mixing with upwelling saline groundwater. Anthropogenic sources include agricultural amendments. Concentrations can also be increased by evaporation. Prevalence is relatively high (>8.8%) in seven PAs that are either carbonate (5-bnrc, 11-edwrds, 23-bisc, and 24-flor) or include carbonates (10-edtrin, 12-trin, and 17 cmor). Prevalence is also high in 7-hp, particularly in the southern High Plains where the upwelling of saline groundwater has been documented. (22) Two PAs (24-flor and 17 cmor) account for more than half of the population potentially affected by strontium.
The mobilization of molybdenum in groundwater is comparable to arsenic, in that there are two common mechanisms that depend on redox. (65) Molybdenum can be desorbed from aquifer sediment under oxic and alkaline conditions and released from manganese- and iron-oxide grain coatings during reductive dissolution under anoxic conditions. Of the 47 samples with elevated concentrations, 45% are oxic, 45% are anoxic, and 11% are mixed. As with arsenic, the distribution of pH is consistent with expectation. The average pH of oxic samples with elevated concentrations is 7.8 compared with 7.2 for oxic samples with low concentrations. In contrast, the average pH of anoxic samples with elevated concentrations is 7.5 compared with 7.4 for anoxic samples with low concentrations. Prevalence is relatively high (>4.8%) in four PAs (1-cacb, 2-cval, 4-bnrf, and 9-riog) that are primarily oxic and two PAs (8-strv-w and 25-clow) where there is a relative balance between oxic and reduced conditions (Figure 4). Two PAs (1-cacb and 4-bnrf) account for more than half of the population potentially affected by molybdenum.
Radium is regulated as the sum of radium-226 and radium-228, which are decay products of uranium-238 and thorium-232, respectively. (66) Elevated concentrations of radium can occur in anoxic, highly mineralized groundwater or in low pH groundwater; mobilization can be enhanced by a low sorptive capacity of the aquifer matrix. (66) Of the 98 samples with elevated concentrations, 74% are anoxic, 10% are mixed, and 13% are oxic. To the extent that groundwater age can be taken as a proxy for the degree of mineralization, the age distribution is consistent with expectation: the percentages of Anthropocene/Holocene/Pleistocene groundwater are 12%/22%/67% for the anoxic + mixed elevated samples and 34%/36%/30% for samples with low concentrations. The distribution of pH is also consistent with expectation: the average pH of the oxic samples with elevated concentrations is 6.4 compared with 7.3 for samples with low concentrations. Prevalence is relatively high (>12%) in four PAs (10-edtrin, 12-trin, 17 cmor, and 24-flor), all of which include some component of carbonate. The prevalence is especially high in 17 cmor (66%), which, by itself, accounts for nearly half of the population potentially affected by radium.
The primary contributors to adjusted gross alpha are alpha-emitting isotopes on the decay series for radium-224, radium-226, radium-228, lead-210, and polonium-210. (67) Prevalence is relatively high (>8.3%) in four PAs (8-strv-w, 12-trin, 17 cmor, and 24-flor), three of which include carbonates and have a high prevalence for radium-226 + radium-228. The 17 cmor PA, by itself, accounts for nearly half the population potentially affected by adjusted gross alpha.
The primary contributors to adjusted gross beta are radium-228 and the beta-emitting isotopes on the uranium-238 decay series (protactinium-234 and thorium-234). (68) Prevalence is relatively high (>1.6%) in two PAs (17 cmor and 24-flor), both of which include carbonates and have a high prevalence for radium-226 + radium-228. The 17 cmor PA, by itself, accounts for nearly half the population potentially affected by adjusted gross beta.
Nitrate can occur naturally in groundwater, but its presence at elevated concentrations is generally due to anthropogenic sources, including fertilizer, animal manure, and septic systems. (69) These sources are often associated with agricultural land use. In some cases, elevated concentrations result from historical, rather than current, land use. In addition, nitrate is not transported conservatively through the subsurface because of assimilation and denitrification processes; elevated concentrations are generally limited to oxic conditions. (69) Prevalence is relatively high (>9.1%) in four PAs that are in or overlie the western unconsolidated group (1-cacb, 2-cval, 7-hp, and 8-strv-w) and in one of the carbonate PAs (19-vrpd). Anthropocene and oxic groundwater is prevalent in all five PAs (Figure 4). Two of the PAs (1-cacb and 2-cval), both located in California, account for about half the population potentially affected by nitrate.
Eleven organic compounds, all of which are related to human activity, were detected at elevated concentrations (Table S4). Solvents (or their degradates) and fumigants were the most frequently detected. Solvents tend to be associated with urban land use, and fumigants tend to be associated with agricultural land use. (70) The distribution of land use is consistent with expectations: wells with solvents and fumigants detected at elevated concentrations were more urban and more agricultural, respectively. The percentages of urban/agricultural/natural land use for all wells (1458) were 49%/21%/30%. In contrast, the percentages for the 21 wells with elevated concentrations of solvents were 75%/11%/15%, and the percentages for the 8 wells with elevated concentrations of fumigants were 53%/39%/8%. As with nitrate, elevated concentrations of organics could be associated with historical land use. Prevalence is relatively high (>3.6%) in five PAs (1-cacb, 2-cval, 8-strv-w, 20-pied, and 23-bisc). Prevalence is not high in 24-flor, but together with two PAs in California (1-cacb and 2-cval), accounts for more than half of the population potentially affected by high concentrations.

Prevalence of Constituents with a Tier-2 Benchmark at High Concentrations

Eleven constituents with a Tier-2 benchmark were detected at elevated concentrations (Table 2). Given the uncertainty associated with Tier-2 thresholds, this section focuses primarily on the national detection frequency at high concentrations (Table S4). The prevalence of each constituent at high concentrations at the PA scale is tabulated in Table S9.
Three geogenic trace elements with a Tier-2 benchmark were detected at elevated concentrations, and all were detected at high concentrations: cobalt (0.9%), iron (1.2%), and lithium. There are two benchmarks available for lithium (Table S3). (23) The HBSL is based on the ingestion of lithium from multiple sources, including water. The drinking water (DW) benchmark is based on water as the only source of lithium and, hence, the DW (60 μg/L) is higher than the HBSL (10 μg/L). At the more stringent HBSL, 43% of the samples are high (Table S4). At the less stringent threshold, 3.6% of the samples are high and prevalence exceeds 10% in seven PAs located in the western U.S.. The distribution, potential sources, and geochemical conditions affecting lithium concentrations in (most of) these samples have been published. (23) Given the high prevalence of concentrations above the HBSL, additional research on the health effects of lithium seems especially warranted.
Three radiogenic constituents with a Tier-2 benchmark were detected at elevated concentrations, and all were detected at high concentrations: lead-210 (3.7%), polonium-210 (1.0%), and radon-222 (1.8%). Prevalence at high concentrations was especially large in 20-pied for lead-210 (23%) and radon-222 (30%). The distribution and geochemical conditions affecting lead-210 and polonium-210 concentrations in (most of) these samples, and their relationship to radon-222, have been published. (25)
Of the 191 organic compounds with a Tier-2 benchmark, five were detected at elevated concentrations: three pharmaceuticals and two pesticide degradates (Table S4). The national detection frequency at elevated concentrations for the five Tier-2 organics, collectively, was 0.6%. Only one of the compounds (hydrocortisone) was detected high, and only in one well. Comprehensive assessments of hormones and pharmaceuticals and pesticides and pesticide degradates in (most of) these samples have been published. (26,27)

Conclusions

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Geogenic constituents have a larger effect on groundwater quality used as a source of public supply in the CONUS than anthropogenic constituents. Elevated concentrations of geogenic constituents with an MCL or Tier-1 benchmark were detected more frequently than anthropogenic constituents (35% versus 8.1%); at a greater prevalence, on the basis of area (41% versus 6.4%); and potentially affect more people (31.3 million versus 7.1 million). Five geogenic constituents (arsenic, manganese, strontium, radium, and adjusted gross alpha) have as much or more effect than nitrate. To the extent that MCLs are regulatory, elevated concentrations of those constituents have been recognized and are managed by providers of public supply. Unregulated constituents, particularly geogenic constituents, may be of greater concern.
Three unregulated geogenic constituents with Tier-1 benchmarks─manganese, strontium, and molybdenum─are prevalent at elevated concentrations (Table S4) and potentially affect a large population (Figures 2 and 3). Collectively, elevated concentrations of the three constituents potentially affect 18 million people, which is ∼20% of the groundwater-dependent population in the 25 PAs evaluated. Manganese is also a “nuisance” constituent with a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) (71) that is lower than the Tier-1 benchmark (50 μg/L compared with 300 μg/L). To the extent that public water supply is treated by removal for compliance with the SMCL, then manganese concentrations would not be above the Tier-1 benchmark in the delivered supply. Treatment for manganese, however, is not required, nor is treatment required for strontium and molybdenum. All three constituents are on the USEPA Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate Lists, which are used to identify priority contaminants for regulatory decision making and information collection. (10) The occurrence of constituents at elevated concentrations in source water is one of the considerations in the process. The data presented in this paper for Tier-1 constituents─particularly manganese, strontium, and molybdenum─can be used by the USEPA and others in the regulatory decision-making process.
Six unregulated geogenic constituents with Tier-2 benchmarks were detected at concentrations above those benchmarks: cobalt, iron, lithium, lead-210, polonium-210, and radon-222. Given that the values of the Tier-2 benchmarks have greater uncertainty than those of Tier-1 and MCL benchmarks, additional evaluation of health effects may be needed. An increase in the confidence of toxicity estimates could lead to HHBs that are higher than those based on lower confidence estimates. (9,72) Hence, the detection frequency and prevalence of high concentrations of Tier-2 constituents could be lower than the values presented here.
Prevalence of one or more constituents (MCL or Tier-1) at elevated concentrations was high (40 to 75%) in PAs comprising unconsolidated sediment (eight PAs) and sandstone or interbedded sandstones and carbonates (four PAs) in the West and Central Interior. Prevalence was lower (15 to 35%) in PAs comprising sediment and sedimentary rocks along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts (four PAs), carbonates distributed across the CONUS (seven PAs), and hard rock (two PAs). The population potentially affected broadly reflects prevalence: 25.7 million in the 12 PAs with high prevalence and 10.6 million in the 13 PAs with lower prevalence. The contrast occurs despite nearly equal groundwater-dependent populations (45 million and 44 million, respectively). The associations of elevated concentrations of specific constituents with aquifer type can be used by water suppliers, regulators, and others to guide additional sampling of groundwater used for drinking supply.
Equal-area sampling, with ∼60 wells per PA, and analyses for a common set of constituents at nearly all wells provided a foundation for the systematic assessment of groundwater quality at the scale of PAs and the CONUS. Given the equal-area approach, we were able to directly address crucial drinking water resource questions: Which constituents are most prevalent at elevated concentrations? Where are concentrations elevated? How many people might be affected by elevated concentrations, and where are they located? Answering these questions yields insights into current and potential human health threats that might not otherwise be evident. The equal-area randomized approach is broadly applicable and can be implemented in other regions.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00390.

  • Characteristics of wells (XLSX)

  • Descriptions of all constituents sampled for (XLSX)

  • Summary information for constituents detected at elevated concentrations (XLSX)

  • Relative concentrations (environmental concentration divided by human health benchmark) for constituents detected at elevated concentrations (XLSX)

  • Prevalence of Tier-1 constituents and population potentially affected at the scale of principal aquifers (XLSX)

  • Prevalence of Tier-2 constituents (XLSX)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Miranda S. Fram - U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United States
    • Bruce D. Lindsey - U.S. Geological Survey, Water Mission Area, 215 Limekiln Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7180-4319
    • Paul E. Stackelberg - U.S. Geological Survey, Water Mission Area, 425 Jordan Road, Troy, New York 12180, United States
    • Laura M. Bexfield - U.S. Geological Survey, New Mexico Water Science Center, 6700 Edith Blvd NE, Bldg B, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1789-654X
    • Tyler D. Johnson - U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 4165 Spruance Road, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92101, United States
    • Bryant C. Jurgens - U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1572-113X
    • James A. Kingsbury - U.S. Geological Survey, Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center, 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100, Nashville, Tennessee 37211, United States
    • Peter B. McMahon - U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center, Denver Federal Center, Bldg 53, MS 415, Denver, Colorado 80225, United StatesOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7452-2379
    • Neil M. Dubrovsky - U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United States
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript. CRediT: Kenneth Belitz conceptualization (lead), data curation (supporting), formal analysis (lead), investigation (lead), methodology (lead), project administration (lead), software (supporting), writing-original draft (lead), writing-review & editing (lead); Miranda S Fram data curation (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), project administration (supporting), writing-original draft (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting); Bruce D. Lindsey data curation (supporting), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), project administration (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting); Paul E Stackelberg data curation (supporting), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), project administration (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting); Laura Bexfield data curation (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), writing-original draft (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting); Tyler D. Johnson data curation (supporting), methodology (supporting), software (supporting); Bryant C. Jurgens data curation (supporting), methodology (supporting), software (supporting); James A. Kingsbury data curation (supporting), methodology (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting); Peter B. McMahon formal analysis (supporting), investigation (supporting), writing-original draft (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting); Neil M. Dubrovsky conceptualization (supporting), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), writing-original draft (supporting), writing-review & editing (supporting).

  • Funding

    All authors are employees of the U.S. Geological Survey. Neil Dubrovsky is currently Emeritus. This study was funded by U.S. Congressional appropriation for the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment project (NAWQA) and by the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (contract 20–013–250).

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We thank the well owners who graciously allowed the USGS to collect samples, USGS personnel who collected and managed the data, and our colleagues who helped manage the effort. We are particularly indebted to Terri Arnold, Jeannie Barlow, MaryLynn Musgrove, and Jennifer Sharpe. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 72 other publications.

  1. 1
    Moore, J. W. Balancing the needs of water use; Springer Verlag, 1989.
  2. 2
    Maupin, M. A.; Kenny, J. F.; Hutson, S. S.; Lovelace, J. K.; Barber, N. L.; Linsey, K. S. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.  DOI: 10.3133/cir1405 .
  3. 3
    Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K.; Kauffman, L. J.; Watson, E.; Wilson, J. T. Populations using public-supply groundwater in the conterminous US 2010; Identifying the wells, hydrogeologic regions, and hydrogeologic mapping units. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150618,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150618
  4. 4
    Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K.; Lombard, M. A. Estimating domestic well locations and populations served in the contiguous US for years 2000 and 2010. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 12611273,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.036
  5. 5
    U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 730; Reston, VA, Miller, J. A., Ed.; 2000,  DOI: 10.3133/ha730 .
  6. 6
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Table ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulation-table (accessed 2022-06-16).
  7. 7
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act (accessed 2022-09-28).
  8. 8
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides ; 2022. https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/pesticides/f?p=HHBP:home (accessed 2022-06-16).
  9. 9
    Norman, J. E.; Toccalino, P. L.; Morman, S. A. Health-Based Screening Levels for evaluating water-quality data, 2nd ed; 2018. https://water.usgs.gov/water-resources/hbsl/ (accessed 2022-06-15).
  10. 10
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and Regulatory Determination ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ccl (accessed 2022-06-16).
  11. 11
    Rowe, G. L.; Belitz, K.; Essaid, H. I.; Gilliom, R. J.; Hamilton, P. A.; Hoos, A. B.; Lynch, D. D.; Munn, M. D.; Wolock, D. W. Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 2013–2022: Part 1: Framework of Water-Quality Issues and Potential Approaches. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1296 ; 2010. DOI: 10.3133/ofr20091296 .
  12. 12
    DeSimone, L. A.; McMahon, P. B.; Rosen, M. R. The quality of our Nation’s waters: Water quality in principal aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 162 ; 2015. DOI: 10.3133/cir1360 .
  13. 13
    DeSimone, L. A. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5227 ; 2009. DOI: 10.3133/sir20095227 .
  14. 14
    Toccalino, P. L.; Hopple, J. A. The quality of our Nation’s waters: Quality of water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: Overview of major findings. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1346 ; 2010. DOI: 10.3133/cir1346 .
  15. 15
    Eberts, S. M.; Thomas, M. A.; Jagucki, M. L. The quality of our Nation’s waters: factors affecting public-supply-well vulnerability to contamination: understanding observed water quality and anticipating future water quality. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1224 2013, 132, Report,  DOI: 10.3133/cir1224
  16. 16
    Hopple, J. A.; Delzer, G. C.; Kingsbury, J. A. Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of selected community water systems that use groundwater, 2002–05. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5200 ; 2009. DOI: 10.3133/sir20095200 .
  17. 17
    Degnan, J. R.; Kauffman, L. J.; Erickson, M. L.; Belitz, K.; Stackelberg, P. E. Depth of groundwater used for drinking-water supplies in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5069 ; 2021. DOI: 10.3133/sir20215069 .
  18. 18
    Belitz, K.; Jurgens, B.; Landon, M. K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. Estimation of aquifer scale proportion using equal area grids: Assessment of regional scale groundwater quality. Water Resour Res. 2010, 46, W11550,  DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009321
  19. 19
    Belitz, K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. D. Metrics for Assessing the Quality of Groundwater Used for Public Supply, CA, USA: Equivalent-Population and Area. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (14), 83308338,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00265
  20. 20
    McMahon, P. B.; Belitz, K.; Reddy, J. E.; Johnson, T. D. Elevated Manganese Concentrations in United States Groundwater, Role of Land Surface-Soil-Aquifer Connections. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (1), 2938,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04055
  21. 21
    McMahon, P. B.; Brown, C. J.; Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K.; Lindsey, B. D. Fluoride occurrence in United States groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139217,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139217
  22. 22
    Musgrove, M. The occurrence and distribution of strontium in US groundwater. Appl. Geochem. 2021, 126, 104867,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2020.104867
  23. 23
    Lindsey, B. D.; Belitz, K.; Cravotta, C. A.; Toccalino, P. L.; Dubrovsky, N. M. Lithium in groundwater used for drinking-water supply in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 767, 144691,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144691
  24. 24
    McMahon, P. B.; Belitz, K.; Barlow, J. R. B.; Jurgens, B. C. Methane in aquifers used for public supply in the United States. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 84, 337347,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.07.014
  25. 25
    Szabo, Z.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Cravotta, C. A. Occurrence and Geochemistry of Lead-210 and Polonium-210 Radionuclides in Public-Drinking-Water Supplies from Principal Aquifers of the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (12), 72367249,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00192
  26. 26
    Bexfield, L. M.; Toccalino, P. L.; Belitz, K.; Foreman, W. T.; Furlong, E. T. Hormones and Pharmaceuticals in Groundwater Used As a Source of Drinking Water Across the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (6), 29502960,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05592
  27. 27
    Bexfield, L. M.; Belitz, K.; Lindsey, B. D.; Toccalino, P. L.; Nowell, L. H. Pesticides and Pesticide Degradates in Groundwater Used for Public Supply across the United States: Occurrence and Human-Health Context. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (1), 362372,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05793
  28. 28
    Bexfield, L. M.; Belitz, K.; Fram, M. S.; Lindsey, B. D. Volatile organic compounds in groundwater used for public supply across the United States: Occurrence, explanatory factors, and human-health context. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 827, 154313,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154313
  29. 29
    Jurgens, B. C.; Faulkner, K.; McMahon, P. B.; Hunt, A. G.; Casile, G.; Young, M. B.; Belitz, K. Over a third of groundwater in USA public-supply aquifers is Anthropocene-age and susceptible to surface contamination. Communications Earth and Environment 2022,  DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00473-y
  30. 30
    Brown, C. J.; Barlow, J. R. B.; Cravotta, C. A.; Lindsey, B. D. Factors affecting the occurrence of lead and manganese in untreated drinking water from Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain aquifers, eastern United States-Dissolved oxygen and pH framework for evaluating risk of elevated concentrations. Appl. Geochem. 2019, 101, 88102,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2018.10.017
  31. 31
    Degnan, J. R.; Lindsey, B. D.; Levitt, J. P.; Szabo, Z. The relation of geogenic contaminants to groundwater age, aquifer hydrologic position, water type, and redox conditions in Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain aquifers, eastern and south-central USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 137835,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137835
  32. 32
    Erickson, M. L.; Yager, R. M.; Kauffman, L. J.; Wilson, J. T. Drinking water quality in the glacial aquifer system, northern USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133735,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133735
  33. 33
    Rosecrans, C. Z.; Musgrove, M. Water Quality of groundwater used for public supply in principal aquifers of the western United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5078 2020,  DOI: 10.3133/sir20205078
  34. 34
    U.S. Geological Survey. California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project ; 2022. https://webapps.usgs.gov/gama/ (accessed 2022-06-20).
  35. 35
    Michielssen, S.; Vedrin, M. C.; Guikema, S. D. Trends in microbiological drinking water quality violations across the United States. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6 (11), 30913105,  DOI: 10.1039/D0EW00710B
  36. 36
    Pennino, M. J.; Compton, J. E.; Leibowitz, S. G. Trends in Drinking Water Nitrate Violations Across the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (22), 1345013460,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04269
  37. 37
    Scanlon, B. R.; Fakhreddine, S.; Reedy, R. C.; Yang, Q.; Malito, J. G. Drivers of Spatiotemporal Variability in Drinking Water Quality in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (18), 1296512974,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c08697
  38. 38
    Nigra, A. E.; Chen, Q.; Chillrud, S. N.; Wang, L.; Harvey, D.; Mailloux, B.; Factor-Litvak, P.; Navas-Acien, A. Inequalities in Public Water Arsenic Concentrations in Counties and Community Water Systems across the United States, 2006–2011. Environ. Health Perspect. 2020, 128 (12), 127001,  DOI: 10.1289/EHP7313
  39. 39
    Spaur, M.; Lombard, M. A.; Ayotte, J. D.; Harvey, D. E.; Bostick, B. C.; Chillrud, S. N.; Navas-Acien, A.; Nigra, A. E. Associations between private well water and community water supply arsenic concentrations in the conterminous United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147555,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147555
  40. 40
    Scott, J. Computerized stratified random site-selection approaches for design of a ground-water-quality sampling network. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 90–4101 1990.  DOI: 10.3133/wri904101 .
  41. 41
    Arnold, T. L.; DeSimone, L.; Bexfield, L. M.; Lindsey, B.; Barlow, J. R.; Kulongoski, J.; Musgrove, M.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Belitz, K. Groundwater Quality Data from the National Water Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 997 2016,  DOI: 10.3133/ds997
  42. 42
    Arnold, T.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Lindsey, B. D.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Barlow, J. R.; DeSimone, L. A.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Ayotte, J. D. Groundwater-quality data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2014 and select quality-control data from May 2012 through December 2014. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1063 2017,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1063
  43. 43
    Arnold, T.; Bexfield, L.; Musgrove, M.; Lindsey, B.; Stackelberg, P.; Lindsey, B.; Barlow, J.; Kulongoski, J.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2015 and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013- 2014. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1087 2018,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1087
  44. 44
    Arnold, T.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Erickson, M. L.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Degnan, J. R.; Tesoriero, A. J.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Belitz, K. Groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2016, and previously unpublished data from 2013 to 2015. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1124 2020,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1124
  45. 45
    Kingsbury, J. A.; Bexfield, L. M.; Arnold, T.; Musgrove, M.; Erickson, M. L.; Degnan, J. R.; Tesoriero, A. J.; Lindsey, B. D.; Belitz, K. Groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January 2017 through December 2019. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1136 2021,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1136
  46. 46
    Koterba, M. T.; Wilde, F. D.; Lapham, W. W. Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–399; USGS Publications Warehouse, 1995. DOI: 10.3133/ofr95399 .
  47. 47
    Lapham, W. W.; Wilde, F. D.; Koterba, M. T. Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Selection, Installation, and Documentation of Wells, and Collection of Related Data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–398; USGS Publications Warehouse, 1995. DOI: 10.3133/ofr95398 .
  48. 48
    U.S. Geological Survey. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9 ; 2015. DOI: 10.3133/twri09 .
  49. 49
    Zomer, R.; Trabucco, A.; van Straaten, O.; Bossio, D. Carbon, land and water: A global analysis of the hydrologic dimensions of climate change mitigation through afforestation/reforestation; IWMI, 2006.
  50. 50
    Zomer, R. J.; Trabucco, A.; Bossio, D. A.; Verchot, L. V. Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 2008, 126 (1–2), 6780,  DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.014
  51. 51
    Middleton, N.; Thomas, D. S. G. World atlas of desertification; United Nations Environment Programme., Copublished in the US, Central and South America by John Wiley, London; New York, 1997. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=007862306&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
  52. 52
    Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K. Assigning land use to supply wells for the statistical characterization of regional groundwater quality: Correlating urban land use and VOC occurrence. J. Hydrol 2009, 370 (1–4), 100108,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.056
  53. 53
    Falcone, J. A. U.S. conterminous wall-to-wall anthropogenic land use trends (NWALT), 1974–2012. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 948 2015 45. DOI: 10.3133/ds948 .
  54. 54
    McMahon, P. B.; Chapelle, F. H. Redox processes and water quality of selected principal aquifer systems. Ground Water 2008, 46 (2), 259271,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00385.x
  55. 55
    Jurgens, B. C.; McMahon, P. B.; Chapelle, F. H.; Eberts, S. M. An Excel workbook for identifying redox processes in ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1004 2009,  DOI: 10.3133/ofr20091004
  56. 56
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System . 2022. https://www.epa.gov/iris (accessed 2022-07-21).
  57. 57
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories Tables. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-01/dwtable2018.pdf (accessed June 19, 2022).
  58. 58
    Jurgens, B. C.; Parkhurst, D. L.; Belitz, K. Assessing the Lead Solubility Potential of Untreated Groundwater of the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (6), 30953103,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04475
  59. 59
    Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17 (5), 517568,  DOI: 10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00018-5
  60. 60
    Nordstrom, D. K.; Smedley, P. L. Fluoride in groundwater; The Groundwater Project, 2022.
  61. 61
    Langmuir, D. Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
  62. 62
    Hobday, D. K.; Galloway, W. E. Groundwater processes acid sedimentary uranium deposits. Hydrogeol J. 1999, 7 (1), 127138,  DOI: 10.1007/s100400050184
  63. 63
    Jurgens, B. C.; Fram, M. S.; Belitz, K.; Burow, K. R.; Landon, M. K. Effects of Groundwater Development on Uranium: Central Valley, California, USA. Ground Water 2010, 48 (6), 913928,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00635.x
  64. 64
    Nolan, J.; Weber, K. A. Natural Uranium Contamination in Major US Aquifers Linked to Nitrate. Environ. Sci. Tech Let 2015, 2 (8), 215220,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00174
  65. 65
    Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G. Molybdenum in natural waters: A review of occurence, distributions and controls. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 84, 387432,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.05.008
  66. 66
    Szabo, Z.; dePaul, V. T.; Fischer, J. M.; Kraemer, T. F.; Jacobsen, E. Occurrence and geochemistry of radium in water from principal drinking-water aquifer systems of the United States. Appl. Geochem. 2012, 27 (3), 729752,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.11.002
  67. 67
    Arndt, M. Evaluation of gross alpha and uranium measurements for MCL compliance ; 2010. https://www.waterrf.org/resource/evaluation-gross-alpha-and-uranium-measurements-mcl-compliance-0 (accessed August 9, 2022).
  68. 68
    Welch, A. H.; Szabo, Z.; Parkhurst, D. L.; VanMetre, P. C.; Mullin, A. H. Gross-beta activity in ground water: Natural sources and artifacts of sampling and laboratory analysis. Appl. Geochem. 1995, 10 (5), 491503,  DOI: 10.1016/0883-2927(95)00020-8
  69. 69
    Dubrovsky, N. M.; Burow, K. R.; Clark, G. M.; Gronberg, J.; Hamilton, P. A.; Hitt, K. J.; Mueller, D. K.; Munn, M. D.; Nolan, B. T.; Puckett, L. J. The quality of our Nation’s waters─Nutrients in the Nation’s streams and groundwater, 1992–2004. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1350 2010, (2), 174,  DOI: 10.3133/cir1350
  70. 70
    Zogorski, J. S.; Carter, J. M.; Ivahnenko, T.; Lapham, W. W.; Moran, M. J.; Rowe, B. L.; Squillace, P. J.; Toccalino, P. L. Volatile organic compounds in the nation’s ground water and drinking-water supply wells. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1292 2006, 101,  DOI: 10.3133/cir1292
  71. 71
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals (accessed 2022-06-23).
  72. 72
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Lithium ; 2008, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/pprtv/documents/Lithium.pdf (accesed September 28, 2022).

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 2 publications.

  1. Jiadi Ying, Yuqing Lin, Yiren Zhang, Jianguo Yu. Developmental Progress of Electrodialysis Technologies and Membrane Materials for Extraction of Lithium from Salt Lake Brines. ACS ES&T Water 2023, 3 (7) , 1720-1739. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00013
  2. Yanxin Wang, Songhu Yuan, Jianbo Shi, Teng Ma, Xianjun Xie, Yamin Deng, Yao Du, Yiqun Gan, Zhilin Guo, Yiran Dong, Chunmiao Zheng, Guibin Jiang. Groundwater Quality and Health: Making the Invisible Visible. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (13) , 5125-5136. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08061
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Map showing principal aquifers (PAs) and wells. The numbers posted on the map identify the PAs that are explained in Table 1.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Bar charts showing population potentially affected by elevated concentrations for geogenic constituents, anthropogenic constituents, and any constituent, with benchmarks as indicated.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Bar charts showing population potentially affected by selected constituents at elevated concentrations.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Bar charts showing, for each PA: groundwater-dependent population, prevalence of any constituent at elevated concentrations, and population potentially affected by any constituent at elevated concentrations.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Bar charts showing characteristics of wells, by PA: climate, land use, well depth, groundwater age, redox, and pH.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 72 other publications.

    1. 1
      Moore, J. W. Balancing the needs of water use; Springer Verlag, 1989.
    2. 2
      Maupin, M. A.; Kenny, J. F.; Hutson, S. S.; Lovelace, J. K.; Barber, N. L.; Linsey, K. S. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.  DOI: 10.3133/cir1405 .
    3. 3
      Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K.; Kauffman, L. J.; Watson, E.; Wilson, J. T. Populations using public-supply groundwater in the conterminous US 2010; Identifying the wells, hydrogeologic regions, and hydrogeologic mapping units. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150618,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150618
    4. 4
      Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K.; Lombard, M. A. Estimating domestic well locations and populations served in the contiguous US for years 2000 and 2010. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 12611273,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.036
    5. 5
      U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 730; Reston, VA, Miller, J. A., Ed.; 2000,  DOI: 10.3133/ha730 .
    6. 6
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Table ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulation-table (accessed 2022-06-16).
    7. 7
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act (accessed 2022-09-28).
    8. 8
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides ; 2022. https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/pesticides/f?p=HHBP:home (accessed 2022-06-16).
    9. 9
      Norman, J. E.; Toccalino, P. L.; Morman, S. A. Health-Based Screening Levels for evaluating water-quality data, 2nd ed; 2018. https://water.usgs.gov/water-resources/hbsl/ (accessed 2022-06-15).
    10. 10
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and Regulatory Determination ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ccl (accessed 2022-06-16).
    11. 11
      Rowe, G. L.; Belitz, K.; Essaid, H. I.; Gilliom, R. J.; Hamilton, P. A.; Hoos, A. B.; Lynch, D. D.; Munn, M. D.; Wolock, D. W. Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 2013–2022: Part 1: Framework of Water-Quality Issues and Potential Approaches. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1296 ; 2010. DOI: 10.3133/ofr20091296 .
    12. 12
      DeSimone, L. A.; McMahon, P. B.; Rosen, M. R. The quality of our Nation’s waters: Water quality in principal aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 162 ; 2015. DOI: 10.3133/cir1360 .
    13. 13
      DeSimone, L. A. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5227 ; 2009. DOI: 10.3133/sir20095227 .
    14. 14
      Toccalino, P. L.; Hopple, J. A. The quality of our Nation’s waters: Quality of water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: Overview of major findings. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1346 ; 2010. DOI: 10.3133/cir1346 .
    15. 15
      Eberts, S. M.; Thomas, M. A.; Jagucki, M. L. The quality of our Nation’s waters: factors affecting public-supply-well vulnerability to contamination: understanding observed water quality and anticipating future water quality. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1224 2013, 132, Report,  DOI: 10.3133/cir1224
    16. 16
      Hopple, J. A.; Delzer, G. C.; Kingsbury, J. A. Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of selected community water systems that use groundwater, 2002–05. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5200 ; 2009. DOI: 10.3133/sir20095200 .
    17. 17
      Degnan, J. R.; Kauffman, L. J.; Erickson, M. L.; Belitz, K.; Stackelberg, P. E. Depth of groundwater used for drinking-water supplies in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5069 ; 2021. DOI: 10.3133/sir20215069 .
    18. 18
      Belitz, K.; Jurgens, B.; Landon, M. K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. Estimation of aquifer scale proportion using equal area grids: Assessment of regional scale groundwater quality. Water Resour Res. 2010, 46, W11550,  DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009321
    19. 19
      Belitz, K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. D. Metrics for Assessing the Quality of Groundwater Used for Public Supply, CA, USA: Equivalent-Population and Area. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (14), 83308338,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00265
    20. 20
      McMahon, P. B.; Belitz, K.; Reddy, J. E.; Johnson, T. D. Elevated Manganese Concentrations in United States Groundwater, Role of Land Surface-Soil-Aquifer Connections. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (1), 2938,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04055
    21. 21
      McMahon, P. B.; Brown, C. J.; Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K.; Lindsey, B. D. Fluoride occurrence in United States groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139217,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139217
    22. 22
      Musgrove, M. The occurrence and distribution of strontium in US groundwater. Appl. Geochem. 2021, 126, 104867,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2020.104867
    23. 23
      Lindsey, B. D.; Belitz, K.; Cravotta, C. A.; Toccalino, P. L.; Dubrovsky, N. M. Lithium in groundwater used for drinking-water supply in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 767, 144691,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144691
    24. 24
      McMahon, P. B.; Belitz, K.; Barlow, J. R. B.; Jurgens, B. C. Methane in aquifers used for public supply in the United States. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 84, 337347,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.07.014
    25. 25
      Szabo, Z.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Cravotta, C. A. Occurrence and Geochemistry of Lead-210 and Polonium-210 Radionuclides in Public-Drinking-Water Supplies from Principal Aquifers of the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (12), 72367249,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00192
    26. 26
      Bexfield, L. M.; Toccalino, P. L.; Belitz, K.; Foreman, W. T.; Furlong, E. T. Hormones and Pharmaceuticals in Groundwater Used As a Source of Drinking Water Across the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (6), 29502960,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05592
    27. 27
      Bexfield, L. M.; Belitz, K.; Lindsey, B. D.; Toccalino, P. L.; Nowell, L. H. Pesticides and Pesticide Degradates in Groundwater Used for Public Supply across the United States: Occurrence and Human-Health Context. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (1), 362372,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05793
    28. 28
      Bexfield, L. M.; Belitz, K.; Fram, M. S.; Lindsey, B. D. Volatile organic compounds in groundwater used for public supply across the United States: Occurrence, explanatory factors, and human-health context. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 827, 154313,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154313
    29. 29
      Jurgens, B. C.; Faulkner, K.; McMahon, P. B.; Hunt, A. G.; Casile, G.; Young, M. B.; Belitz, K. Over a third of groundwater in USA public-supply aquifers is Anthropocene-age and susceptible to surface contamination. Communications Earth and Environment 2022,  DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00473-y
    30. 30
      Brown, C. J.; Barlow, J. R. B.; Cravotta, C. A.; Lindsey, B. D. Factors affecting the occurrence of lead and manganese in untreated drinking water from Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain aquifers, eastern United States-Dissolved oxygen and pH framework for evaluating risk of elevated concentrations. Appl. Geochem. 2019, 101, 88102,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2018.10.017
    31. 31
      Degnan, J. R.; Lindsey, B. D.; Levitt, J. P.; Szabo, Z. The relation of geogenic contaminants to groundwater age, aquifer hydrologic position, water type, and redox conditions in Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain aquifers, eastern and south-central USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 137835,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137835
    32. 32
      Erickson, M. L.; Yager, R. M.; Kauffman, L. J.; Wilson, J. T. Drinking water quality in the glacial aquifer system, northern USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133735,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133735
    33. 33
      Rosecrans, C. Z.; Musgrove, M. Water Quality of groundwater used for public supply in principal aquifers of the western United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5078 2020,  DOI: 10.3133/sir20205078
    34. 34
      U.S. Geological Survey. California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project ; 2022. https://webapps.usgs.gov/gama/ (accessed 2022-06-20).
    35. 35
      Michielssen, S.; Vedrin, M. C.; Guikema, S. D. Trends in microbiological drinking water quality violations across the United States. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6 (11), 30913105,  DOI: 10.1039/D0EW00710B
    36. 36
      Pennino, M. J.; Compton, J. E.; Leibowitz, S. G. Trends in Drinking Water Nitrate Violations Across the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (22), 1345013460,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04269
    37. 37
      Scanlon, B. R.; Fakhreddine, S.; Reedy, R. C.; Yang, Q.; Malito, J. G. Drivers of Spatiotemporal Variability in Drinking Water Quality in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (18), 1296512974,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c08697
    38. 38
      Nigra, A. E.; Chen, Q.; Chillrud, S. N.; Wang, L.; Harvey, D.; Mailloux, B.; Factor-Litvak, P.; Navas-Acien, A. Inequalities in Public Water Arsenic Concentrations in Counties and Community Water Systems across the United States, 2006–2011. Environ. Health Perspect. 2020, 128 (12), 127001,  DOI: 10.1289/EHP7313
    39. 39
      Spaur, M.; Lombard, M. A.; Ayotte, J. D.; Harvey, D. E.; Bostick, B. C.; Chillrud, S. N.; Navas-Acien, A.; Nigra, A. E. Associations between private well water and community water supply arsenic concentrations in the conterminous United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147555,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147555
    40. 40
      Scott, J. Computerized stratified random site-selection approaches for design of a ground-water-quality sampling network. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 90–4101 1990.  DOI: 10.3133/wri904101 .
    41. 41
      Arnold, T. L.; DeSimone, L.; Bexfield, L. M.; Lindsey, B.; Barlow, J. R.; Kulongoski, J.; Musgrove, M.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Belitz, K. Groundwater Quality Data from the National Water Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 997 2016,  DOI: 10.3133/ds997
    42. 42
      Arnold, T.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Lindsey, B. D.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Barlow, J. R.; DeSimone, L. A.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Ayotte, J. D. Groundwater-quality data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2014 and select quality-control data from May 2012 through December 2014. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1063 2017,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1063
    43. 43
      Arnold, T.; Bexfield, L.; Musgrove, M.; Lindsey, B.; Stackelberg, P.; Lindsey, B.; Barlow, J.; Kulongoski, J.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2015 and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013- 2014. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1087 2018,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1087
    44. 44
      Arnold, T.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Erickson, M. L.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Degnan, J. R.; Tesoriero, A. J.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Belitz, K. Groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2016, and previously unpublished data from 2013 to 2015. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1124 2020,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1124
    45. 45
      Kingsbury, J. A.; Bexfield, L. M.; Arnold, T.; Musgrove, M.; Erickson, M. L.; Degnan, J. R.; Tesoriero, A. J.; Lindsey, B. D.; Belitz, K. Groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January 2017 through December 2019. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1136 2021,  DOI: 10.3133/ds1136
    46. 46
      Koterba, M. T.; Wilde, F. D.; Lapham, W. W. Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–399; USGS Publications Warehouse, 1995. DOI: 10.3133/ofr95399 .
    47. 47
      Lapham, W. W.; Wilde, F. D.; Koterba, M. T. Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Selection, Installation, and Documentation of Wells, and Collection of Related Data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–398; USGS Publications Warehouse, 1995. DOI: 10.3133/ofr95398 .
    48. 48
      U.S. Geological Survey. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9 ; 2015. DOI: 10.3133/twri09 .
    49. 49
      Zomer, R.; Trabucco, A.; van Straaten, O.; Bossio, D. Carbon, land and water: A global analysis of the hydrologic dimensions of climate change mitigation through afforestation/reforestation; IWMI, 2006.
    50. 50
      Zomer, R. J.; Trabucco, A.; Bossio, D. A.; Verchot, L. V. Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 2008, 126 (1–2), 6780,  DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.014
    51. 51
      Middleton, N.; Thomas, D. S. G. World atlas of desertification; United Nations Environment Programme., Copublished in the US, Central and South America by John Wiley, London; New York, 1997. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=007862306&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
    52. 52
      Johnson, T. D.; Belitz, K. Assigning land use to supply wells for the statistical characterization of regional groundwater quality: Correlating urban land use and VOC occurrence. J. Hydrol 2009, 370 (1–4), 100108,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.056
    53. 53
      Falcone, J. A. U.S. conterminous wall-to-wall anthropogenic land use trends (NWALT), 1974–2012. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 948 2015 45. DOI: 10.3133/ds948 .
    54. 54
      McMahon, P. B.; Chapelle, F. H. Redox processes and water quality of selected principal aquifer systems. Ground Water 2008, 46 (2), 259271,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00385.x
    55. 55
      Jurgens, B. C.; McMahon, P. B.; Chapelle, F. H.; Eberts, S. M. An Excel workbook for identifying redox processes in ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1004 2009,  DOI: 10.3133/ofr20091004
    56. 56
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System . 2022. https://www.epa.gov/iris (accessed 2022-07-21).
    57. 57
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories Tables. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-01/dwtable2018.pdf (accessed June 19, 2022).
    58. 58
      Jurgens, B. C.; Parkhurst, D. L.; Belitz, K. Assessing the Lead Solubility Potential of Untreated Groundwater of the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (6), 30953103,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04475
    59. 59
      Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17 (5), 517568,  DOI: 10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00018-5
    60. 60
      Nordstrom, D. K.; Smedley, P. L. Fluoride in groundwater; The Groundwater Project, 2022.
    61. 61
      Langmuir, D. Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
    62. 62
      Hobday, D. K.; Galloway, W. E. Groundwater processes acid sedimentary uranium deposits. Hydrogeol J. 1999, 7 (1), 127138,  DOI: 10.1007/s100400050184
    63. 63
      Jurgens, B. C.; Fram, M. S.; Belitz, K.; Burow, K. R.; Landon, M. K. Effects of Groundwater Development on Uranium: Central Valley, California, USA. Ground Water 2010, 48 (6), 913928,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00635.x
    64. 64
      Nolan, J.; Weber, K. A. Natural Uranium Contamination in Major US Aquifers Linked to Nitrate. Environ. Sci. Tech Let 2015, 2 (8), 215220,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00174
    65. 65
      Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G. Molybdenum in natural waters: A review of occurence, distributions and controls. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 84, 387432,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.05.008
    66. 66
      Szabo, Z.; dePaul, V. T.; Fischer, J. M.; Kraemer, T. F.; Jacobsen, E. Occurrence and geochemistry of radium in water from principal drinking-water aquifer systems of the United States. Appl. Geochem. 2012, 27 (3), 729752,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.11.002
    67. 67
      Arndt, M. Evaluation of gross alpha and uranium measurements for MCL compliance ; 2010. https://www.waterrf.org/resource/evaluation-gross-alpha-and-uranium-measurements-mcl-compliance-0 (accessed August 9, 2022).
    68. 68
      Welch, A. H.; Szabo, Z.; Parkhurst, D. L.; VanMetre, P. C.; Mullin, A. H. Gross-beta activity in ground water: Natural sources and artifacts of sampling and laboratory analysis. Appl. Geochem. 1995, 10 (5), 491503,  DOI: 10.1016/0883-2927(95)00020-8
    69. 69
      Dubrovsky, N. M.; Burow, K. R.; Clark, G. M.; Gronberg, J.; Hamilton, P. A.; Hitt, K. J.; Mueller, D. K.; Munn, M. D.; Nolan, B. T.; Puckett, L. J. The quality of our Nation’s waters─Nutrients in the Nation’s streams and groundwater, 1992–2004. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1350 2010, (2), 174,  DOI: 10.3133/cir1350
    70. 70
      Zogorski, J. S.; Carter, J. M.; Ivahnenko, T.; Lapham, W. W.; Moran, M. J.; Rowe, B. L.; Squillace, P. J.; Toccalino, P. L. Volatile organic compounds in the nation’s ground water and drinking-water supply wells. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1292 2006, 101,  DOI: 10.3133/cir1292
    71. 71
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals ; 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals (accessed 2022-06-23).
    72. 72
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Lithium ; 2008, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/pprtv/documents/Lithium.pdf (accesed September 28, 2022).
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00390.

    • Characteristics of wells (XLSX)

    • Descriptions of all constituents sampled for (XLSX)

    • Summary information for constituents detected at elevated concentrations (XLSX)

    • Relative concentrations (environmental concentration divided by human health benchmark) for constituents detected at elevated concentrations (XLSX)

    • Prevalence of Tier-1 constituents and population potentially affected at the scale of principal aquifers (XLSX)

    • Prevalence of Tier-2 constituents (XLSX)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect