Next Article in Journal
Exposure to Traffic Density during Pregnancy and Birth Weight in a National Cohort, 2000–2017
Previous Article in Journal
Technodiscipline of Work: Does Post-Pandemic Platform Employment Generate New Psychosocial Risks?
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Bottled and Well Water Quality in a Small Central Appalachian Community: Household-Level Analysis of Enteric Pathogens, Inorganic Chemicals, and Health Outcomes in Rural Southwest Virginia

Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA
Department of Natural Sciences, University of Virginia’s College at Wise, Wise, VA 24293, USA
Department of Engineering Systems and Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA
Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA
Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8610;
Submission received: 31 May 2022 / Revised: 10 July 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022 / Published: 15 July 2022


Consumption of unsafe drinking water is associated with a substantial burden of disease globally. In the US, ~1.8 million people in rural areas lack reliable access to safe drinking water. Our objective was to characterize and assess household-level water sources, water quality, and associated health outcomes in Central Appalachia. We collected survey data and water samples (tap, source, and bottled water) from consenting households in a small rural community without utility-supplied water in southwest Virginia. Water samples were analyzed for physicochemical parameters, total coliforms, E. coli, nitrate, sulfate, metals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, lead), and 30+ enteric pathogens. Among the 69% (n = 9) of households that participated, all had piped well water, though 67% (n = 6) used bottled water as their primary drinking water source. Total coliforms were detected in water samples from 44.4% (n = 4) of homes, E. coli in one home, and enteric pathogens (Aeromonas, Campylobacter, Enterobacter) in 33% (n = 3) of homes. Tap water samples from 11% (n = 1) of homes exceeded the EPA MCL for nitrate, and 33% (n = 3) exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron. Among the 19 individuals residing in study households, reported diarrhea was 25% more likely in homes with measured E. coli and/or specific pathogens (risk ratio = 1.25, cluster-robust standard error = 1.64, p = 0.865). Although our sample size was small, our findings suggest that a considerable number of lower-income residents without utility-supplied water in rural areas of southwest Virginia may be exposed to microbiological and/or chemical contaminants in their water, and many, if not most, rely on bottled water as their primary source of drinking water.

1. Introduction

Access to safe and affordable drinking water is necessary for human health, development, and dignity. Over the last few decades there have been significant gains in the water, sanitation, and hygiene sector globally. However, an estimated two billion people, mostly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), still lack access to safely managed drinking water; globally, disparities in access to safe water are most severe in rural areas [1,2]. Consumption of unsafe drinking water is associated with a substantial burden of disease [3,4,5]. Of the ~1.4 million diarrhea-attributed deaths in 2016, inadequate safe water access accounted for ~0.5 million [5]. A number of cancers (e.g., kidney, urinary, bladder) are known to be associated with chronic exposure to heavy metals in drinking water, as are other adverse health outcomes such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and impaired cognitive development [6,7,8,9].
Unbeknown to many, ~1.8 million people living in rural areas of the US lack reliable access to safe drinking water (estimate derived from data in WHO/UNICEF report, annex three) [1]. A recent nationwide analysis of US Census and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) data identified Appalachia as one of the US regions with the highest rates of water utility violations and numbers of households without complete plumbing [10]. Appalachia, a predominantly rural region in the eastern US, is home to ~26 million people living in 423 counties across parts of the US States of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, as well as all the counties in the State of West Virginia [11].
In low-income rural areas that lack access to safe, utility-provided, drinking water, many households rely on private well water, bottled water, and roadside springs. Yet, our understanding of which rural Appalachian regions, communities, and populations have higher risks of exposure to contaminated drinking water is severely limited by a lack of data, and we know even less about associated impacts on health [12,13,14,15]. For example, although as many as 12 million Americans are estimated to suffer from neglected parasitic infections [16,17], a recent (382 page) report on “Health Disparities in Appalachia” did not discuss drinking water, sanitation, or enteric diseases [18]. Recruiting participants from at-risk populations in rural Appalachia and other rural regions of the US is often challenging [19,20,21], which may partially explain both the relative lack of available data in this domain, and why many published water and health-focused studies from rural Appalachia are based on relatively small sample sizes.
Recent studies have identified water-related disparities in Central Appalachia, found microbiological and heavy metal contamination in Central Appalachian roadside springs commonly used to meet household potable water needs, and suggest that rates of rural bottled water use may be increasing in some areas of the region [12,22,23]. US Census Bureau estimates also indicate that in Virginia’s most southwestern counties of Lee, Wise, and Scott, ~10% of homes in this region of Central Appalachia lack complete plumbing or hot and cold running water [24]. In addition, the Appalachian Regional Commission classifies both Lee and Wise counties as “distressed”, a designation applied to the “most economically depressed counties” in Appalachia [25,26].
Given the relative lack of household-level data in this area, our objective for this study was to elucidate potential exposures to microbiological and chemical contaminants in drinking water by characterizing and quantifying the use and quality of household-level drinking water sources, as well as associated health outcomes and socioeconomic factors, in lower-income households without utility-supplied water in a rural community in Wise County, Virginia.

2. Materials & Methods

2.1. Study Setting

With support from the Wise County Public Service Authority (PSA) in Virginia, in November and December of 2021, researchers from Virginia Tech visited households in a small community in a rural area of Wise County. Households were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were located within the community under consideration for a PSA water supply extension project at that time. The community was situated in a narrow valley, underlain by alluvium (sandstone and shale) and coal mine spoil material, with a relatively shallow (~3 m) depth to the water table and subject to frequent flooding [27].

2.2. Data Collection

We used a cross-sectional design and administered face-to-face interviews using a structured survey that included items from a standardized PSA needs assessment as well as questions about water sources, preferences, related perceptions and behaviors, and individual-level reported health outcomes. In addition to survey items previously used in other low-income rural settings [28,29,30], additional survey questions were developed in consultation with the PSA.
For households that consented to water sampling and testing, we collected multiple samples from two to three sources per home: tap water, source water (tap after sterilizing the faucet with 70% isopropyl alcohol solution and flushing/running the water for five minutes), and bottled water or roadside spring water (if used as a primary drinking water source). Autoclaved sampling bottles were pre-labeled with household-linked code numbers which were also used for labeling surveys.
Physicochemical parameters were measured immediately after each visit to a household using a YSI Multiparameter Water Quality Meter (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, USA) to record duplicate measurements for pH, temperature, conductivity (μS/cm), and dissolved oxygen (%DO). Sampling bottles for additional analyses were transported on ice and analyzed or processed within ~8 h of collection.

2.3. Water Sample Analyses

Duplicate samples were tested for E. coli, an indicator of fecal contamination, and total coliforms, via IDEXX Colilert Defined Substrate and IDEXX Quanti-Tray/2000 (IDEXX, Westbrook, MN, USA) at UVA-Wise and Virginia Tech (Standard Method 9223) [31]. Samples were also tested for nitrate (NO3) and sulfate (SO42−) using a Hach DR850 portable colorimeter (Hach Company, Loveland, CO, USA). Additionally, samples were processed with 2% trace metal grade nitric acid by volume and then analyzed for metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, and silver using a Thermo Electron iCAP-RQ ICP-MS at Virginia Tech (Standard Methods 3030D, 3125B) [31].
Considering the importance of identifying specific pathogenic organisms [32], source water from each household was filtered and concentrated using 0.2 μm concentrating pipettes (CP) for 1 L, and 0.05 μm CPs for 500 mL, with an InnovaPrep Concentrating Pipette Select, and then eluted in 0.075% Tween 20/25 mM Tris wet foam elution buffer (InnovaPrep LLC, Drexel, MO, USA). Elutions were shipped on dry ice from Virginia Tech to the University of Virginia for extraction and analysis using a custom-designed TaqMan array card, high throughput RT-qPCR assay, to detect 30+ viral, bacterial, protozoal, and helminthic pathogens [33,34,35].

2.4. Data Sharing, Ethics, & Statistical Analyses

Prior to initiating data collection, we uploaded pre-specified study protocols to the Open Science Framework [36]. Within six weeks of data collection, summary sheets with water quality results for each participating household, with reference to EPA SDWA standards, were provided to the PSA (by A.C.); the PSA then matched study codes to addresses and provided participants their water results.
Although neither bottled nor private well water are regulated by the SDWA, we contextualized measured water quality results via comparison with EPA health- and aesthetic-based standards. Because US EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and secondary MCL (SMCL) are established based on health risk data as well as considerations related to treatment methods and costs, we report our results in terms of concentrations exceeding both full and half EPA MCLs and SMCLs, as appropriate.
Our study was approved by Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board (VT-IRB #21-763) and this manuscript was prepared in accordance with STROBE reporting guidelines [37]. Statistical analyses (two-sided tests, standard p < 0.05 threshold for significance, and no imputation for missing data) and modeling were conducted (by A.C.) using Stata (Stata/MP v16.1, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) and then replicated (by M.R.) using R (v4.1.1).

3. Results

All 15 homes in the cluster/community were eligible for inclusion in our study; however, 27% (n = 4) declined to support the utility’s proposed water extension proposal, and three of these four households also declined to participate in our study. We were unable to contact a respondent in one occupied home (after multiple attempts), and two homes were vacant when we initiated the study. Thus, of the non-vacant homes in the community at the time of our visits (n = 13), 69% (n = 9) agreed to participate in our study.

3.1. Household Characteristics

All nine of the eligible and non-vacant households that agreed to participate in our study had working access to piped private well water in their homes, though 67% (n = 6) used bottled water as their primary drinking water source. None of the 33% (n = 3) of households using well water as their primary drinking water source reported treating their water (any method). Reported annual household incomes ranged from <$33,000 to no more than $48,000, with 67% (n = 6) of households reporting incomes of <$43,000/year (Table 1).
Reported incomes were higher, overall, in homes using bottled water compared with those using well water, though the difference was not statistically significantly (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p = 0.231). Heads of household were younger, on average, in homes using bottled water (mean = 51.0, n = 6) compared with those using private well water (mean = 66.3, n = 3), though the difference was also not statistically significant (t-test with unequal variance, p = 0.104).

3.2. Water Quality Results

We detected total coliforms in water samples from 44.4% (n = 4) of households, including one bottled water sample. E. coli (an indicator of fecal contamination) was detected in tap and source water samples from one home; although the source water sample concentration (mean of duplicate samples) was low (1.5 MPN/100 mL, standard deviation [SD] = 3.0 MPN/100 mL), it still exceeded the US EPA MCL for E. coli [38]. We also detected bacterial pathogens (using an RT-qPCR cutoff of Ct < 35) in source water samples from 33.3% (n = 3) of homes (including the home with E. coli), with detection of Campylobacter and Enterobacter in 22.2% (n = 3) of homes, and Aeromonas in 11.1% (n = 1); no other pathogens were detected at a Ct < 35 threshold (Table 2).
With regard to non-microbiological water quality markers with US EPA MCL and SMCL regulatory standards, tap water samples from one home exceeded the EPA MCL for nitrate (10 ppm), and tap water samples from 33.3% (n = 3) of homes exceeded the SMCL for iron (0.3 ppm) [38,39]. Tap water samples from 44.4% (n = 4) of homes exceeded half of the MCL for nitrate, and 55.5% (n = 5) exceeded half of the SMCL for iron. Half of the bottled water samples we tested (50%, n = 3) exceeded half of the US EPA MCL for nitrate. We did not observe differential trends for these water quality parameters by levels of reported household income, though our observations were limited to only 2–3 households per income bracket (Figure 1).

3.3. Health Outcomes

Diarrhea (day of household visit or during the previous seven days) was reported for two individuals (from two households) out of 18 individuals in the eight households that provided data on diarrhea. Using Poisson regression with cluster-robust variance estimation (to adjust for multiple individuals nested in households) [40], the likelihood of reported diarrhea was 25% higher for individuals living in homes where we detected E. coli and/or specific enteric pathogens (compared to households with no detection), though the association was not statistically significant (risk ratio [RR] = 1.25, cluster-robust standard error [SE] = 1.64, p = 0.865).
High blood pressure (hypertension) was reported for 31.6% (n = 6) out of 19 individuals living in five of the nine households. In addition to dietary exposure, sodium in drinking water is also associated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease [41,42,43]. In our study, sodium concentrations in source water samples ranged from 3.3–110.0 mg/L (mean = 66.0, SD = 36.0, median = 76.4, n = 9). The US EPA does not have a regulatory guideline value for sodium in drinking water, but recommends a sodium limit of 20 mg/L for individuals on sodium-restricted diets [44]. A recent World Health Organization (WHO) report noted that 71 of the 81 countries or territories globally that have drinking water standards for sodium use a value of 200 mg/L [45]. Therefore, to evaluate potential associations between sodium concentrations in source water samples and reported hypertension, we created a binary variable that equaled one if the sodium concentration was ≥100 mg/L (i.e., half the WHO reported value of 200 mg/L).
After adjusting for clustering by household, the likelihood of reported high blood pressure was 88% higher for individuals living in homes where we measured sodium concentrations in source water ≥ 100 mg/L (compared to households with sodium < 100 mg/L), though the association was not statistically significant (RR = 1.88, cluster-robust SE = 1.27, p = 0.353). After adjusting for reported tobacco use and age, the likelihood of reporting high blood pressure for those with sodium concentrations ≥ 100 mg/L increased to 400%; however, the association was again not significant (RR = 4.00, cluster-robust SE = 3.26, p = 0.088), and we did not have data to control for other known confounders, such as dietary sodium intake and obesity. There were no reports of current kidney or liver disease for any individuals (n = 19).

4. Discussion

In rural regions of many LMICs, as well as in many low-income rural (and urban) regions of the US, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of “…equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all” by 2030 remains out of reach [1,2]. Although limited secondary data indicate that many low-income regions of rural Appalachia lack sufficient access to safe drinking water [10,12], associated adverse impacts on health remain poorly understood. As far as we are aware, based on a recently completed systematic review [14], this study is one of <10 published drinking-water-focused research studies (based on primary data collection) conducted in Central Appalachia in the last ~20 years, and one of relatively few such studies conducted in the Appalachia region more broadly to measure bottled water quality and specific enteric pathogens.
In rural areas similar to the one reported on here, well water can be susceptible to fecal contamination from humans and animals via failing septic systems, runoff, and flooding. There is also some evidence that when pathogens are present in well water the home plumbing environment may contribute to further microbial growth, and, in turn, to higher pathogen concentrations in tap water samples [46,47]. Our finding that one third (33.3%, n = 3) of study households had enteric pathogens detected in their well water is concerning with regard to drinking-water-associated enteric disease exposure risk in this community. While PCR-based methods have the advantage of being able to detect viable, but non-culturable, bacteria, our detection of E. coli (via a culture-based detection method) in samples from only one of the three households where we detected specific pathogens suggests the use of E. coli as an indicator may underreport fecal contamination exposure risks in similar settings.
Given the relatively high costs of bottled water for lower-income households, it is noteworthy that two thirds of study households (66.6%, n = 6) used bottled water as their primary drinking water source. Bottled water may offer protective advantages in rural settings with limited access to reliably safe drinking water sources. In our study, all three households with enteric pathogens detected in their well water reported using bottled water as their primary drinking water source. Our bottled water findings also parallel some observations from rural areas in LMICs. In particular, our observation that reported incomes were higher, and heads of household younger, overall, in households drinking primarily bottled water (compared with well water) aligns with findings from low-income households in rural areas of China [30,48].
Globally, bottled water use has grown rapidly over the last few decades, so much so that overall consumption in large LMICs now exceeds that of bottled water consumption in high-income countries, such as the US, by a substantial margin [49]. Long-term reliance on bottled water can be problematic for multiple reasons. While there are settings in which bottled water may be more cost effective than upgraded/advanced water treatment, typically, bottled water costs households much more than utility-supplied piped water. In addition, a lack of access to sufficient quantities of water is associated with adverse health outcomes [2,50,51]. Some low-income households that rely on bottled water may ration their use for drinking, and many households will use other, potentially unsafe, water sources for food preparation, cooking, and hygiene. Counterintuitively, for most US consumers, bottled water is not regulated under the SDWA, and, in the US and in LMICs, bottled water is not always as safe as consumers might expect [52,53,54]. US standards and testing frequencies are far more stringent for utility supplied water (EPA regulated) than for bottled water (FDA regulated), and, compared to water utilities, bottled water testing data are relatively difficult to access [55]. More broadly, the adverse environmental impacts from bottled water production, transport, disposal, and waste/pollution are considerable [56,57,58].
In the context of rural Appalachia and surrounding regions, drinking water and health-focused research studies based on relatively small sample sizes are not uncommon. For example, Pieper et al. studied well water, tap flushing, and lead concentration dynamics in 15 households in Virginia [59], Hunter et al. analyzed well water, septic systems, fecal indicator organisms, and antibiotics in 13 households in North Carolina [60], and Mulhern et al. analyzed activated carbon filter effectiveness and fecal indicator organisms in 17 households in North Carolina [61]. With respect to our study, while many of our results align with findings from similar research in LMIC settings, interpretation is limited by the small sample size (of both households and total individuals), as well as potential bias from our use of self-reported health outcomes, and a lack of data for homes that declined, or were unavailable, to participate. In addition, because we collected water samples during colder winter months, we cannot speak to potential seasonal impacts on water quality in this setting, an important factor considering studies in LMICs have documented increased rates of fecal contamination in water sources and diarrhea during warmer and wetter months [62,63], and because of the potential effects of seasonality on home plumbing distribution systems and associated impacts on tap water quality [64]. Consequently, it is unclear to what extent observations from this study may be generalizable to other rural areas of southwest Virginia or Central Appalachia.

5. Conclusions

Our findings contribute to the relatively limited research literature on drinking water and health in rural areas of Central Appalachia. Although our sample size was relatively small, our findings indicate that a considerable number of lower-income residents without utility-supplied water in rural southwest Virginia may be exposed to microbiological and/or chemical contamination in their water, and that many, if not most, rural households rely on bottled water as their primary source of drinking water. Our detection of specific enteric pathogens and relatively high concentrations of nitrate and iron in water samples indicates that additional research and data are needed to better understand which regions, communities, and populations in Central Appalachia may be exposed to contaminated water sources, the nature and extent of potentially associated adverse health outcomes, and what interventions might be implemented to expand safe water access.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.C.; design and methods: A.C., L.-A.K., M.E., T.B., M.T. and E.T.R.M.; data collection: A.C., M.R., A.D. and L.-A.K.; laboratory analyses: A.C., M.R., A.D., L.-A.K., T.B., T.A., E.W., S.P. and M.T.; data curation and analysis: A.C. and M.R.; results interpretation: A.C., M.R., L.-A.K., M.E., T.B., M.T. and E.T.R.M.; writing—original draft: A.C.; writing—review and editing: A.C., L.-A.K., M.E., T.B., M.T. and E.T.R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


Funding for this work was provided by Virginia Tech as well as the Global Infectious Diseases Institute at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Our study was approved by Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board (VT-IRB #21-763).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all participating households.

Data Availability Statement

Upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, de-identified aggregated data may be provided.


We thank Cody McElroy and Gordon Scott at the Wise County Public Service Authority for their support and assistance with this study. We also extend thanks to Rachel Guevara (UVA-Wise), as well as Jeffrey Parks and Hannah Patton (Virginia Tech).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. WHO/UNICEF. Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2017: Special Focus on Inequalities; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. WHO/UNICEF. Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2020: Five Years into the SDGs; WHO & UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 9789240030848. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lim, S.S.; Allen, K.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Dandona, L.; Forouzanfar, M.H.; Fullman, N.; Gething, P.W.; Goldberg, E.M.; Hay, S.I.; Holmberg, M.; et al. Measuring the Health-Related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 Countries: A Baseline Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016, 388, 1813–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Khalil, I.A.; Troeger, C.; Rao, P.C.; Blacker, B.F.; Brown, A.; Brewer, T.G.; Colombara, D.V.; De Hostos, E.L.; Engmann, C.; Guerrant, R.L.; et al. Morbidity, Mortality, and Long-Term Consequences Associated with Diarrhoea from Cryptosporidium Infection in Children Younger than 5 Years: A Meta-Analyses Study. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e758–e768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Prüss-Ustün, A.; Wolf, J.; Bartram, J.; Clasen, T.; Cumming, O.; Freeman, M.C.; Gordon, B.; Hunter, P.R.; Medlicott, K.; Johnston, R. Burden of Disease from Inadequate Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Selected Adverse Health Outcomes: An Updated Analysis with a Focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019, 222, 765–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wang, S.-X.; Wang, Z.-H.; Cheng, X.-T.; Li, J.; Sang, Z.-P.; Zhang, X.-D.; Han, L.-L.; Qiao, X.-Y.; Wu, Z.-M.; Wang, Z.-Q. Arsenic and Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water: Children’s IQ and Growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 643–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Moon, K.A.; Oberoi, S.; Barchowsky, A.; Chen, Y.; Guallar, E.; Nachman, K.E.; Rahman, M.; Sohel, N.; D’Ippoliti, D.; Wade, T.J.; et al. A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Chronic Arsenic Exposure and Incident Cardiovascular Disease. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 46, 1924–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Chowdhury, R.; Ramond, A.; O’Keeffe, L.M.; Shahzad, S.; Kunutsor, S.K.; Muka, T.; Gregson, J.; Willeit, P.; Warnakula, S.; Khan, H.; et al. Environmental Toxic Metal Contaminants and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ 2018, 362, k3310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Greco, S.L.; Belova, A.; Haskell, J.; Backer, L. Estimated Burden of Disease from Arsenic in Drinking Water Supplied by Domestic Wells in the United States. J. Water Health 2019, 17, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mueller, J.T.; Gasteyer, S. The Widespread and Unjust Drinking Water and Clean Water Crisis in the United States. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. ARC About the Appalachian Region. Available online: (accessed on 30 June 2022).
  12. Krometis, L.-A.; Gohlke, J.; Kolivras, K.; Satterwhite, E.; Marmagas Susan, W.; Marr Linsey, C. Environmental Health Disparities in the Central Appalachian Region of the United States. Rev. Environ. Health 2017, 32, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McKenna, M.L.; McAtee, S.; Bryan, P.E.; Jeun, R.; Ward, T.; Kraus, J.; Bottazzi, M.E.; Hotez, P.J.; Flowers, C.C.; Mejia, R. Human Intestinal Parasite Burden and Poor Sanitation in Rural Alabama. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 97, 1623–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cohen, A.; Darling, A.; Patton, H. Drinking Water Contamination, Exposure, and Associated Health Outcomes in Rural Appalachia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; NIHR-PROSPERO: Online, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, D.; Murphy, H.M. Private Wells and Rural Health: Groundwater Contaminants of Emerging Concern. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2020, 7, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hotez, P.J. Neglected Infections of Poverty in the United States of America. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2008, 2, e256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Hotez, P.J. Neglected Parasitic Infections and Poverty in the United States. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. ARC Health Disparities in Appalachia: The First Report in a Series Exploring Health Issues in Appalachia; Appalachian Regional Commission: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  19. Leach, C.R.; Schoenberg, N.E.; Hatcher, J. Factors Associated with Participation in Cancer Prevention and Control Studies among Rural Appalachian Women. Fam. Community Health 2011, 34, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Carpenter, R.; Theeke, L.A. Strategies for Recruiting a Sample of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes from Primary Care Clinics in Rural Appalachia: Incorporating Cultural Competence. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2018, 5, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Thurman, W.A.; Harrison, T.C. Reaching the “Hard-to-Reach”: Recruitment of Rural-Dwelling Adults with Disabilities. J. Transcult. Nurs. 2020, 31, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. McSpirit, S.; Reid, C. Residents’ Perceptions of Tap Water and Decisions to Purchase Bottled Water: A Survey Analysis from the Appalachian, Big Sandy Coal Mining Region of West Virginia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Krometis, L.-A.; Patton, H.; Wozniak, A.; Sarver, E. Water Scavenging from Roadside Springs in Appalachia. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 2019, 166, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. USCB United States Census Bureau. ACS 5-Year Estimates 5-Year Estimates—Public Use Microdata Sample. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 22 February 2022).
  25. ARC. County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2023. Available online: (accessed on 30 June 2022).
  26. ARC. Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System. Available online: (accessed on 30 June 2022).
  27. USDA. USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, Wise County, VA. Available online: (accessed on 2 May 2022).
  28. Cohen, A.; Sullivan, C.A. Water and Poverty in Rural China: Developing an Instrument to Assess the Multiple Dimensions of Water and Poverty. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 999–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. IFAD; Cohen, A.; Jayne, S. The Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool: User’s Guide; United Nations International Fund for Agricultural Development: Rome, Italy, 2014; ISBN 9789290724759.
  30. Alasdair, C.; Ajay, P.; Qing, L.; Qi, Z.; Hongxing, L.; Gemei, Z.; Gang, Z.; Colford, J.M.; Smith, K.R.; Isha, R.; et al. Boiled or Bottled: Regional and Seasonal Exposures to Drinking Water Contamination and Household Air Pollution in Rural China. Environ. Health Perspect. 2020, 128, 127002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. APHA/AWWA/WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed.; American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. Goddard, F.G.B.; Ban, R.; Barr, D.B.; Brown, J.; Cannon, J.; Colford, J.M.; Eisenberg, J.N.S.; Ercumen, A.; Petach, H.; Freeman, M.C.; et al. Measuring Environmental Exposure to Enteric Pathogens in Low-Income Settings: Review and Recommendations of an Interdisciplinary Working Group. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 11673–11691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Liu, J.; Gratz, J.; Amour, C.; Kibiki, G.; Becker, S.; Janaki, L.; Verweij, J.J.; Taniuchi, M.; Sobuz, S.U.; Haque, R.; et al. A Laboratory-Developed TaqMan Array Card for Simultaneous Detection of 19 Enteropathogens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Liu, J.; Platts-Mills, J.A.; Juma, J.; Kabir, F.; Nkeze, J.; Okoi, C.; Operario, D.J.; Uddin, J.; Ahmed, S.; Alonso, P.L.; et al. Use of Quantitative Molecular Diagnostic Methods to Identify Causes of Diarrhoea in Children: A Reanalysis of the GEMS Case-Control Study. Lancet 2016, 388, 1291–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Pedrosa de Macena, L.d.G.; Castiglia Feitosa, R.; Vieira, C.B.; Araújo, I.T.; Taniuchi, M.; Miagostovich, M.P. Microbiological Assessment of an Urban Lagoon System in the Coastal Zone of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1170–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cohen, A. Rural Virginia Public Drinking Water Supply Extension Project: A Prospective Cohort Study—Pre-Specified Study Protocols. Open Sci. Framew. Osfiov 2021, 7685. [Google Scholar]
  37. Vandenbroucke, J.P.; von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Pocock, S.J.; Poole, C.; Schlesselman, J.J.; Egger, M.; for the STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007, 4, e297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. EPA US EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Available online: (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  39. EPA US EPA Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals. Available online: (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  40. Cummings, P. Methods for Estimating Adjusted Risk Ratios. Stata J. 2009, 9, 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Farquhar William, B.; Edwards David, G.; Jurkovitz Claudine, T.; Weintraub William, S. Dietary Sodium and Health. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 65, 1042–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Grillo, A.; Salvi, L.; Coruzzi, P.; Salvi, P.; Parati, G. Sodium Intake and Hypertension. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Naser, A.M.; Rahman, M.; Unicomb, L.; Doza, S.; Gazi, M.S.; Alam, G.R.; Karim, M.R.; Uddin, M.N.; Khan, G.K.; Ahmed, K.M.; et al. Drinking Water Salinity, Urinary Macro-Mineral Excretions, and Blood Pressure in the Southwest Coastal Population of Bangladesh. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. EPA. Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Sodium; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  45. WHO. A Global Overview of National Regulations and Standards for Drinking-Water Quality; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dai, D.; Rhoads, W.J.; Katner, A.; Strom, L.; Edwards, M.A.; Pruden, A.; Pieper, K.J. Molecular Survey of Legionella and Naegleria Fowleri in Private Well Water and Premise Plumbing Following the 2016 Louisiana Flood. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2019, 5, 1464–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mapili, K.; Rhoads, W.J.; Coughter, M.; Pieper, K.J.; Edwards, M.A.; Pruden, A. Occurrence of Opportunistic Pathogens in Private Wells after Major Flooding Events: A Four State Molecular Survey. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 826, 153901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cohen, A.; Zhang, Q.; Luo, Q.; Tao, Y.; Colford, J.M.; Ray, I. Predictors of Drinking Water Boiling and Bottled Water Consumption in Rural China: A Hierarchical Modeling Approach. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6945–6956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Cohen, A.; Ray, I. The Global Risks of Increasing Reliance on Bottled Water. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 327–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stelmach, D.R.; Clasen, T. Household Water Quantity and Health: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2015, 12, 5954–5974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Ray, I.; Smith, K.R. Towards Safe Drinking Water and Clean Cooking for All. Lancet Glob. Health 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Olson, E.D.; Poling, D.; Solomon, G. Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype? National Resources Defense Council: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  53. Williams, A.R.; Bain, R.E.S.; Fisher, M.B.; Cronk, R.; Kelly, E.R.; Bartram, J. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Fecal Contamination and Inadequate Treatment of Packaged Water. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Cohen, A.; Cui, J.; Song, Q.; Xia, Q.; Huang, J.; Yan, X.; Guo, Y.; Sun, Y.; Colford, J.M.; Ray, I. Bottled Water Quality and Associated Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 20 Years of Published Data from China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 013003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Felton, R. Looking for Info about Bottled Water Quality? Good Luck. (6 Surprising Things CR Learned While Digging into the Industry); Consumer Reports: Yonkers, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Fantin, V.; Scalbi, S.; Ottaviano, G.; Masoni, P. A Method for Improving Reliability and Relevance of LCA Reviews: The Case of Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Tap and Bottled Water. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 476–477, 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Laville, S.; Taylor, M. A Million Bottles a Minute: World’s Plastic Binge “as Dangerous as Climate Change”; Guardian News & Media Limited: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  58. Horowitz, N.; Frago, J.; Mu, D. Life Cycle Assessment of Bottled Water: A Case Study of Green2O Products. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 734–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pieper, K.J.; Krometis, L.-A.; Gallagher, D.; Benham, B.; Edwards, M. Profiling Private Water Systems to Identify Patterns of Waterborne Lead Exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12697–12704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Hunter, B.; Walker, I.; Lassiter, R.; Lassiter, V.; Gibson, J.M.; Ferguson, P.L.; Deshusses, M.A. Evaluation of Private Well Contaminants in an Underserved North Carolina Community. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 147823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Mulhern, R.; Stallard, M.; Zanib, H.; Stewart, J.; Sozzi, E.; MacDonald Gibson, J. Are Carbon Water Filters Safe for Private Wells? Evaluating the Occurrence of Microbial Indicator Organisms in Private Well Water Treated by Point-of-Use Activated Carbon Block Filters. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2021, 238, 113852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kostyla, C.; Bain, R.; Cronk, R.; Bartram, J. Seasonal Variation of Fecal Contamination in Drinking Water Sources in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mertens, A.; Balakrishnan, K.; Ramaswamy, P.; Rajkumar, P.; Ramaprabha, P.; Durairaj, N.; Hubbard, A.E.; Khush, R.; Colford, J.M.; Arnold, B.F. Associations between High Temperature, Heavy Rainfall, and Diarrhea among Young Children in Rural Tamil Nadu, India: A Prospective Cohort Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127, 047004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Zhang, H.; Xu, L.; Huang, T.; Yan, M.; Liu, K.; Miao, Y.; He, H.; Li, S.; Sekar, R. Combined Effects of Seasonality and Stagnation on Tap Water Quality: Changes in Chemical Parameters, Metabolic Activity and Co-Existence in Bacterial Community. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 124018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Comparison of mean concentrations for selected water quality parameters from source water samples (tap after five-minute flush) by reported household income brackets.
Figure 1. Comparison of mean concentrations for selected water quality parameters from source water samples (tap after five-minute flush) by reported household income brackets.
Ijerph 19 08610 g001
Table 1. Key Household Characteristics Overall and by Primary Source of Drinking Water.
Table 1. Key Household Characteristics Overall and by Primary Source of Drinking Water.
Private Well
(n = 3)
Bottled Water
(n = 6)
All Households
(n = 9)
HH Owned or Rented
Total a3100%5100%8100%
Respondent’s Gender
Respondent’s Race
HH Annual Income Level b
<33 k133%117%222%
33–38 k133%117%222%
38–43 k133%117%222%
43–48 k00%350%333%
Working toilet, sink, & tub/shower
Adults (≥18) residing in home
Children (<18) residing in home
Head of the HH Gender
Head of HH: Age
Mean (standard deviation)66.3(7.5)51.0(17.1)56.1(16.0)
Head of HH: Years lived in home
Mean (standard deviation)30.7(26.1)12.6(9.9)18.6(17.7)
Notes: HH = household, a missing data from one HH, b annual income is self-reported (thousands of US dollars per year). Shading provided to help delineate column-specific results.
Table 2. Water Sample Analysis Results by Water Source.
Table 2. Water Sample Analysis Results by Water Source.
Bottled Water Samples
(n = 6)
Tap Water Samples
(n = 9)
Source Water Samples a
(n = 9)
Physicochemical Parameters
Temperature (Celsius)
Total dissolved solids (ppm) [Conductivity/2]22.624.561.6104.835.3140.595.528.2125.9
Dissolved Oxygen (%)80.43.886.044.614.372.
Microbiological Indicators & Pathogens
Total Coliforms (TC) Detected: % HHs (n)16.7%(n = 1) 33.3%(n = 3) 33.3%(n = 3)
MPN/100 mL for HHs with TC b1.0n/a2.05.57.318.
E. coli (EC) Detected: % HHs (n)0%(n = 0) 11.1%(n = 1) 11.1%(n = 1)
MPN/100 mL for HHs with EC b0.0n/a0.00.5n/a1.01.5n/a3.0
Specific Enteric Pathogens DetectedNot testedNot tested33.3%(n = 3)
Aeromonas bacteria: % HHs (n) 11.1%(n = 1)
Campylobacter bacteria: % HHs (n) 22.2%(n = 2)
Enterobacter bacteria: % HHs (n) 22.2%(n = 2)
Inorganic Chemicals with EPA MCL *
Arsenic (ppb)0.0380.0720.1810.0290.0220.0610.0210.0170.056
Barium (ppm)0.0050.0080.0210.1370.1200.2720.1350.1190.274
Cadmium (ppb)0.0050.0060.0120.0200.0350.1110.0050.0060.016
Chromium (ppm)0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.0000.0000.001
Copper (ppm)0.0010.0030.0080.0660.1830.5520.0020.0030.009
Lead (ppb)0.0220.0530.1300.5000.7582.1970.0670.1710.520
Nitrate [NO3] (ppm)4.5751.5806.3004.2783.26110.4004.5331.5517.000
Selenium (ppm)0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
% HHs (n) with ≥1 parameter/s:
Greater than the EPA MCL c0%(n = 0) 11.1%(n = 1) 0%(n = 0)
Greater than ½ the EPA MCL c50.0%(n = 3) 44.4%(n = 4) 33.3%(n = 3)
Chemicals with EPA SMCL
Aluminum (ppm)0.0060.0120.0300.0040.0030.0100.0020.0010.003
Chloride (ppm)2.5833.85410.0489.3467.39923.7069.3087.33123.524
Iron (ppm)0.0000.0000.0010.2310.2180.6690.2120.1900.671
Manganese (ppm)0.0010.0020.0060.0140.0080.0240.0120.0090.021
Sulfate [SO4] (ppm)2.3335.24113.0002.6676.18519.002.7786.87021.00
Zinc (ppm)0.0070.0010.0090.2140.4801.4890.0150.0110.038
% HHs (n) with ≥1 parameter/s:
Greater than the EPA SMCL d0%(n = 0) 33.3%(n = 3) 11.1%(n = 1)
Greater than ½ the EPA SMCL d0%(n = 0) 55.5%(n = 5) 66.6%(n = 6)
Notes: HH = household, ppm = parts per million (mg/L), ppb = parts per billion (μg/L). * Or EPA action levels and associated treatment techniques. a Source water = samples from tap after sterilizing and flushing (running) faucet for five minutes. b Max = maximum value of duplicate samples per source per HH. c Nitrate. d Iron. Shading provided to help delineate column-specific results.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cohen, A.; Rasheduzzaman, M.; Darling, A.; Krometis, L.-A.; Edwards, M.; Brown, T.; Ahmed, T.; Wettstone, E.; Pholwat, S.; Taniuchi, M.; et al. Bottled and Well Water Quality in a Small Central Appalachian Community: Household-Level Analysis of Enteric Pathogens, Inorganic Chemicals, and Health Outcomes in Rural Southwest Virginia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8610.

AMA Style

Cohen A, Rasheduzzaman M, Darling A, Krometis L-A, Edwards M, Brown T, Ahmed T, Wettstone E, Pholwat S, Taniuchi M, et al. Bottled and Well Water Quality in a Small Central Appalachian Community: Household-Level Analysis of Enteric Pathogens, Inorganic Chemicals, and Health Outcomes in Rural Southwest Virginia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8610.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cohen, Alasdair, Md Rasheduzzaman, Amanda Darling, Leigh-Anne Krometis, Marc Edwards, Teresa Brown, Tahmina Ahmed, Erin Wettstone, Suporn Pholwat, Mami Taniuchi, and et al. 2022. "Bottled and Well Water Quality in a Small Central Appalachian Community: Household-Level Analysis of Enteric Pathogens, Inorganic Chemicals, and Health Outcomes in Rural Southwest Virginia" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8610.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop