Next Article in Journal
International Inland Waterways in Poland: Current State and Their Importance in EU Transport Policy
Previous Article in Journal
Developing Insights into Pretreatment Optimization: Effects of Eliminating Lime and Soda Ash in Groundwater RO Desalination
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 22
10.3390/w17223188
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Accumulation of Metal Contaminants in Rural Roof-Harvested Drinking Water Tanks in the Vicinity of a Metal Mine and Coal Mines

by
Ian A. Wright
1,*,
Anna Christie
1 and
Amy-Marie Gilpin
1,2
1
School of Science, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
2
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(22), 3188; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17223188
Submission received: 11 October 2025 / Revised: 26 October 2025 / Accepted: 28 October 2025 / Published: 7 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Water Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The central objective of this study was to investigate metals accumulating in water at the bottom of roof-harvested drinking water tanks in rural inland NSW, located from 220 km west to 420 km northwest of Sydney. Two of three study areas contained mining operations. The Narrabri study area contained five coal mines, the Cadia study area a large gold and copper mine. A third region (Mendooran) had no mines. In this study, turbidity, pH, salinity and the total concentration of 15 metals were measured in water tank samples. Four metals (cadmium, lead, nickel and manganese) and arsenic from the bottom of tanks often exceeded Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Of drinking water samples, 90% exceeded lead guidelines (<10 µg L−1), with 54% exceeding by 100 times and 3.6% of samples exceeding lead guidelines by 1000 times. Contamination was generally greater in Cadia area tanks. It is likely that metal-enriched mine particulate emissions contribute through fallout onto roofs used to harvest drinking water. Improved environmental monitoring and governance to address metal-contaminated dust emissions from mines and improved information on fallout plumes are needed. Action is also needed to encourage regular cleaning of drinking water tanks.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

More than 10% of Australian households, mostly in rural and remote locations, use a rainwater tank as their primary source of drinking water [1]. However, relatively few studies have investigated water quality in tanks and most of those were conducted in urban areas where tank water is not generally used for drinking [1,2,3]. The limited information available on drinking water tanks detail that tanks that collect and store roof-harvested rainwater often contain impaired water quality that can potentially be harmful to human health [1,2,3,4]. Common water quality contaminants in home water tanks include microbial pathogens [1] and metals at concentrations that can exceed recommended Australian Drinking Water Guideline (ADWG) aesthetic and health limits [1,2,3,4,5]. Metals/metalloids of heightened concern for human health include lead, nickel, chromium, arsenic, cadmium, manganese and mercury [5]. Lead is of major concern in any drinking water supply and has been documented at elevated and hazardous concentrations in drinking water supplied by water tanks [6,7,8]. Elevated lead concentrations in drinking water are a major public health concern as it is a cumulative neurotoxin that can affect normal brain development [9]. The Australian Drinking Water Guideline for lead is <10 µg L−1 [5]. This is double the recommended maximum lead concentration that Canadian drinking water guidelines recommend (<5 µg L−1) [10].
The fallout of metal-rich particulates from dust and aerosols onto roofs that harvest rain for drinking water has caused metal contamination of rainwater tanks. A major Australian lead and nickel contamination incident occurred in Esperance, Western Australia. It involved contamination of household water tanks from the fallout of metal-enriched aerosol particulates that accumulated in the water tanks [6,7]. The source of contamination was airborne dust particulates that were created by the movement and handling of lead- and nickel-enriched ore materials that were transported, stockpiled and loaded onto ships at the Esperance port in 2005–2007 [6,7].
A previous study investigated metal contamination in drinking water quality in drinking water tanks at properties around the Cadia copper and gold mine [11]. That study was triggered by community concerns that metal pollutants in the dust could be impairing the quality of water in their drinking water tanks. It was suspected that dust from airborne particulates from the mine were collecting on roofs and flushing into water tanks used to collect and store home drinking water [11]. An earlier 2023 study of water quality in drinking water tanks in the district surrounding the Cadia mine was conducted by NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) [12]. The EPA study did not collect samples from within water tanks, but collected samples from kitchen taps, or from taps on the water tanks [12]. A second 2023 EPA study of Cadia water tanks collected only samples of sediment that had accumulated at the bottom of tanks [13], measuring the metals in mg kg−1, but together the two EPA water tank studies did not accurately reflect the chemical composition of bottom-of-tank sediment-enriched water that people could drink if bottom-of-tank sediment was mobilised and the sediment-contaminated water entered the home supply.
The nearby Cadia mine had triggered many community complaints due to the problem of visible air pollution, including dust from the tailing dams and from exhaust vents containing underground ore-crushing dust that are vented at the surface [14,15]. The mine was subsequently investigated and prosecuted by NSW Environment Protection Au-thority (EPA) for three dust emission offences that occurred in 2021 and 2023 [16]. Cadia pleaded guilty in the NSW Land and Environment Court of breaching the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 due to excessive emissions of total suspended particulates from the mine’s exhaust ventilation system [17].
Our previous study of water quality in Cadia district drinking water tanks collected water samples from 42 properties and detected accumulation of metals at the bottom of water tanks [11]. In that previous study [11], a sample was collected just below the surface of the stored water and a second sample was collected from the bottom few centimetres of each water tank. A third sample was collected from the home kitchen tap. Water was sampled from the bottom of water tanks in the Cadia study [11] as research that described how the build-up of sediment at the bottom of tanks can be resuspended and transported through the water outlet of the tank [18,19]. For example, an experimental study by Magyar et al. [18] showed that the 10 to 20 mm thick sediment and water layer along the bottom of tanks was often disturbed and resuspended by turbulence of inflowing water. The resuspended sediment often entered the outflowing water from the tank, particularly where inflows to the tank are at the top of the tank and when tank outlets are located near the bottom of the tank [18]. The earlier EPA Cadia water tank study that investigated tank sediment [13] failed to recognise the risk that disturbance and resuspension of bottom sediment could cause it to enter the house water supply.
Our previous study of Cadia drinking water tanks [11] revealed the concentration of several metals (lead, nickel, arsenic and manganese) from bottom-of-tank water samples frequently exceeded the Australian drinking water health guidelines [5]. In our previous study, more than 35% of water samples collected at the bottom of Cadia district tanks detected arsenic in water samples at concentrations exceeding drinking water health guidelines (<10 µg L−1) [11]. In contrast, the EPA water tank study collected more than 100 water samples each from Cadia water tanks and house taps and none recorded arsenic above the guideline. In our previous study of Cadia water tanks [11], the concentration of all metals was significantly lower in samples collected from the top of tanks and also from samples collected from the kitchen tap, potentially reflecting that as most water tanks were near full, the sediment layer in the tank had not been disturbed and thus not transported through the tank outlet and into the house water supply [11,18].
The source of the metals that accumulated in the Cadia district tanks was not determined by the previous study [11]. It was suspected, due to the proximity of the mine and the frequent dusty emissions from the gold and copper mine, that metal-enriched particulates in dust from the Cadia mine probably contributed [14,15,16,17]. It can be very difficult to determine causation in the contamination of drinking water from roof-harvested water tanks. Each water tank and water supply are exposed to a unique combination of potential contributing sources, often over very long periods of time. Many studies have revealed that construction materials such as roof, tank and water system plumbing materials and fixtures can impart metal contamination on the water delivered at the tap [18,19]. One of the known sources of lead contamination in drinking water tanks is from lead materials used in roof flashing and other roofing and household water supply system materials [18,19]. For example, elevated concentrations of zinc are often measured in water from Australian water tanks due to the historic use of metal components that were treated by galvanizing to help protect underlying metals against corrosion of building materials including roofing, pipes, roof gullies and even metal water tanks [1,18,19,20].
Most water quality investigations of Australian water tanks have been conducted in urban areas, including the lead and nickel contamination of water tanks in the Esperance urban area, near the port area [6,7]. An investigation in Poland reported that atmospheric fallout of contaminants can also influence rainwater water quality [21]. Urban atmospheric fallout was reported to be an important factor in influencing water quality in a year-long study of multiple water quality indicators, including metals, in more than 20 water tanks across Brisbane, Queensland, where increased contamination of water was found in areas of industrial activity and greater traffic activity [22].
To find the source of lead contamination in tropical Queensland (Karumba) water tanks, high-precision lead isotopes were used that revealed a combination of dust fallout from industrial ore processing in addition to lead contamination from roof, tank or plumbing materials, both contributing to the water tank lead contamination [23]. The Cadia mine commissioned a study of lead isotopes that they claimed ‘… found no evidence linking Cadia with the lead sampled in district water tanks’ [24]. Doubt has been expressed about this conclusion by Professor Brian Gulson, who was commissioned to review the Cadia lead isotope study [25]. Professor Gulson called for further data collection and more sensitive testing [26]. The EPA also investigated lead isotopes from sediment material collected from the bottom of water tank samples in the Cadia area and reported that the source of lead in samples from water tanks was from a mixture of old lead products and local soils rather than from the nearby Cadia gold and copper mine [27].
The purpose of the current study was to investigate and compare the accumulated metal content of roof-harvested drinking water tanks in three rural regions in NSW. Two of the regions have nearby mining activity and the third (Mendooran) has no nearby mining. The main land use in all three study areas is agriculture, with sheep and cattle grazing common in all three. Similar to many rural and remote areas [1], outside of the town settlements, all three study areas have communities that rely on private roof-harvested tank water as their main water supply. We focused on the health-related metals/metalloid (arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel) in the water and sediment layer at the bottom of water tanks. Both rural areas that had mining activity also had generated complaints about dust caused by mining activities. Many in the community near mining activity were also concerned about fallout of particulates from nearby mine operations affecting their local air quality and their roof-harvested water supplies [13,14]. We collected additional samples from tanks in the Cadia area to add to the data collected in the earlier study on water tanks near the Cadia gold and copper mine [11]. The second mining district where we investigated water tanks was surrounding coal mines of the Narrabri area of the Namoi Valley of NSW.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cadia Gold and Copper Mine

The Cadia copper and gold mine operation operates as Cadia Valley Operations (CVO). It is located about 220 km west of Sydney (Figure 1). The area’s mean annual rainfall is 925 mm, with a January mean maximum of 26.6 °C and a July mean minimum of 1.6 °C with a mean 9 am wind speed of 10.2 km h−1 [28]. The CVO mine operation has had three phases since it began as the Cadia Hill open-cut mine in 1996 [11]. The latest phase is the adjoining Cadia East underground mine, which was approved in 2010 [29]. The CVO mine is the largest underground gold and copper mine in Australia [29]. Pollution (noise, waste, air and water) resulting from the operation of the Cadia mine is regulated by NSW EPA under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) using an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) that is specific to this location and mine operation (EPL 5590) [30]. EPL 5590 is a 38-page document, including a section “Pollution Studies and Reduction Programs” that details EPA requirements on how the mine must manage, monitor and take action to reduce dust emissions from several elements of its operation [30]. This includes dust “lifted” from the mine tailings disposal and storage areas and also for dust emitted from exhaust vents at the surface from underground operations, including ore crushers [13,14,15].
The Cadia mine also reports pollutant emissions from their mine operation for 28 substances, including metals and different sizes of particulates, to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). This is required under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Commonwealth) as part of an Australia-wide program to track pollutants across all states and territories of Australia [31].
Particulate emissions from the four Cadia underground mine exhaust vents were measured in February to March 2022 [32]. The four vents emitted about 12 kg of solid particles each minute. This was mostly (89%) in the fine to very fine categories (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1). The metal content of the particulates emitted was also measured in grams per minute [32].

2.2. Narrabri Coal Mines

Located 420 km northwest of Sydney, the Narrabri study area is a predominantly cropping and grazing locality. The area’s mean annual rainfall is 651 mm, with a January mean maximum of 33.8 ° C and July mean minimum of 3.7 ° C and mean 9 am wind speed of 15.7 km h−1 [33]. The community has many concerns about impaired air quality from a range of sources, including several coal mine operations [34]. The area hosts several coal mines, with increased mine activity since 2000 (Figure 1) [35,36]. There are currently five coal mines operating in the Gunnedah Basin study area. They are Maules Creek Coal, Narrabri Underground, Boggabri Coal, Tarrawonga and Vickery, four of them in the local government area of Narrabri and one in the Gunnedah Local Government Area (LGA). These mines commenced operation between 1986 and 2015 [35]. Each mine holds an EPL that regulates pollution from each mine operation. An example is EPL 20221 for Maules Creek Coal Mine [37]. Maules Creek Coal Mine is the largest mine in this area, with approval to extract a maximum of 13 million tonnes of coal per annum [36]. Along with noise, waste and water, each mine’s EPL also addresses dust pollution from the mine’s activities. For example, the EPL 20221 for the Maules Creek Mine [37] includes the following statement:
“All operations and activities occurring at the premises must be carried out in a manner that will minimise the emission of dust from the premises”
[37]
Common to all coal mines in the Narrabri area, the Maules Creek Mine is required, in accordance with EPL 20221 [37], to regularly collect monitoring data on dust at several locations and time intervals. This includes measuring particulates in micrograms per cubic metre (for particle size PM10) and also collecting the mass of particulates as deposited matter in grams per square metre [37]. The NSW EPA also publish continuously updated air quality data, ‘Namoi air quality monitoring project’, from a series of monitoring stations in the Namoi area [34]. This is in the form of particulate matter (PM) in two different particle sizes in microns, PM2.5 and PM10. The airshed monitoring scheme imposed under consent conditions for four of the Gunnedah Basin coal mines was not directed at apportioning responsibility for alleged pollution, but to measure ambient air quality according to national air quality goals [34].
There are several coal mine activities that generate dust emissions. In addition to dust generated by mine vehicle movements, the open-cut coal mines also use regular blasting with explosives as part of their mine operation [36]. Blasting and other mine activities generate dust clouds. The surrounding community expressed concerns that the mine activities generate excessive fine dust particles (PM10, PM2.5) that are particularly harmful to human health, including contributing to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses [38]. Each of the five Narrabri district coal mines also report pollutant emissions from their mine operation for 28 substances, including metals and different sizes of particulates, to the NPI [31,39].

2.3. Mendooran

The Mendooran study area is about 400 km northwest of Sydney (Figure 1). It was selected as a predominantly rural area in NSW which, according to the NPI, had no active mining activity for more than 100 km in any direction [39]. The area’s mean annual rainfall is 620 mm, with a January mean maximum of 32.2 °C and July mean minimum of 2.1° C and mean 9 am wind speed of 12.4 km h−1 [40]. Mendooran is a small town of 626 people [38] within the mostly rural Warrumbungle Shire, with a total Local Government Area (LGA) population of 9228 [41].

2.4. Selection of Properties for Testing

Collecting Tank Samples

The properties and water tanks sampled in the Cadia study area were located within a 960 square kilometre area (Figure 1), stretching 25 km to 32 km from an approximate midpoint of the Cadia mine (33.4690° S and 149.0019° E). Additional to the data from the previous study [11], an additional six samples were collected from the Cadia study area in December 2024. The study was conducted with support and cooperation of the Cadia district local community that provided permission for collection of water samples from water tanks, the majority of which were used for household drinking water. Some were used for other purposes such as garden and livestock watering.
In the Narrabri study area, we collected 48 water tank samples from 24 properties within a considerably larger area than Cadia or Mendooran, of an approximate 5000 square km, due to the scattered location of several coal mines across the Narrabri local government area (Figure 1). The Narrabri tank sampling was conducted over four days, 17–20 April 2024. An approximate centre point of the coal mine activity in the area is 30.4690° S and 149.9430° E. In this area, many properties had two, three or more water tanks and, on average, two tanks per property were sampled. In addition to the coal mines, the main land use in this area is mostly rural, predominantly cereal and other crops, improved pastures and cattle and sheep grazing. There are also three large settlements (Gunnedah, Narrabri and Boggabri) and several small settlements. To the west and east of the study area are mostly naturally vegetated conservation reserves. The largest nearby reserves are Pilliga Forest and immediately east of the study area is Mount Kaputar National Park. The range of altitudes of the study area is from 195 to 450 m ASL (Figure 1).
The sampling area at Mendooran was a relatively small 130 square kilometres centred around the midpoint of the town (Figure 1: 31.8211° S and 149.1254° E). In this area, many of the 24 properties visited (21 and 22 February 2025) had two, three or more water tanks and, on average, two tanks per property were sampled. In some tanks, duplicate samples were collected and tested. A total of 47 samples were collected from water tanks in this study area. The main land use in this area was mostly rural, predominantly used for cereal cropping, improved pastures, cattle and sheep grazing. The study included collecting samples from several water tanks within the town of Mendooran that people often used for drinking. Altitude in this study ranged from 340 to 400 m ASL.
Households across the three study areas registered their interest, via social media or through word of mouth, in participating in the study. Their decision to participate in the water tank investigation was voluntary. It involved providing consent for researchers to visit their properties and collect samples from their water tank(s). Households were selected for the study based on first registering their interest, and also being located (1) within 32 km, in any direction, of the Cadia mine, (2) within the LGA of Narrabri (host to five coal mines) or (3) within 10 km of the non-mining small rural township of Mendooran (Figure 1).

2.5. Collecting Water Samples from Water Tanks

Water samples were collected from the top (c.20 cm depth of upper water surface) and from the bottom few cm of roof-harvested water tanks at each property (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Water from the top of water tanks was manually collected using a clean and rinsed (using deionised water) 500 mL plastic sampling beaker by reaching down through the tank opening. It was collected by hand (wearing disposable surgical gloves) in a smooth sweeping arc motion, just below the top surface of the water (Figure 4). The top samples were tested for physiochemical properties including pH (pH units), and salinity was measured as electrical conductivity (EC; µS cm−1) using a calibrated TPS Aqua-CP/A waterproof conductivity–pH-temperature meter (supplied by TPS PTY Ltd., Brendale, QLD, Australia). Water tests for pH and EC were conducted only for the top of water tank samples. Water turbidity was measured in water samples collected at the bottom few cm of tanks using a HACH 2100 P Turbidimeter (HACH Company, Lovedale, PA, USA. Water turbidity tests were conducted using two to three replicate tests per sample.
Water samples collected from the bottom of the tank were sent for later laboratory testing of total metal concentration, following the same methodology developed and refined in the previous Cadia water tank study [11] to assess the zone of metal accumulation [18,19]. The water sample from the bottom of the water tank was collected using a PVC BioBailerTM Landfill Biodegradable Bailer that is often used for collecting groundwater samples (Figure 2). The thoroughly cleaned and rinsed, with deionised water, PVC sampling device collects water as it is directed downwards through the water column within the water tank. The collected water is trapped as the sampler stops and is lifted and a marble ‘locks’ the water sample within the PVC tube so that it can be lifted to the surface. This sampler was fastened by tape to a 2 m aluminium sampling pole to enable it to reach the bottom of tanks (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The PVC sampler filled with water in about 1 to 2 seconds as it was thrust downwards to make physical contact with the bottom of the tank. This enabled collection of a bottom-of-tank water sample. The action of collecting the bottom sample resulted in collection from a turbid water and sediment layer that was encountered in the bottom few cm of the tank (Figure 3). The sampler was hauled promptly to the surface, removed from the tank with the locking mechanism, then released to allow about 200 to 250 mL of water from the bottom of the PVC sampler to be released into clean sampling containers that were also rinsed in deionised water before testing the next sample. The sampler was also rinsed with deionised water before and after use.
The water sample from the bottom of the tank was used to fill unused 50 mL plastic bottles, containing a small amount of nitric acid, for laboratory testing of metals. All of the bottom-of-tank water samples obtained were unfiltered. This was because most properties (estimated to be 95%) that were visited for sample collection did not filter the drinking water supplied by the drinking water tank.
After samples for turbidity testing were extracted, the bottom-of-tank water samples were immediately cooled and sent to Envirolab, Chatswood NSW, a commercial, National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)-accredited laboratory for determination of total metal/metalloid concentrations. A total of 137 samples were tested from bottom of tanks: 42 samples were from Narrabri tanks, 48 samples from Cadia tanks and 47 samples from Mendooran tanks were collected for metal testing. All samples were unfiltered and total concentrations of 15 metals were measured by Envirolab following NATA-accredited methods using inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry. Quality assurance measures included laboratory duplicates, laboratory blank matrix tests and recoveries from a blank in 10% of samples, plus surrogate matrix spikes for each sample analysed in accordance with NATA-accredited methods. The metals/metalloids selected were based on those recorded in samples from the earlier study of Cadia water tanks [11]. This included metals/metalloids of known drinking water health significance (arsenic, lead, manganese, copper, cadmium, copper, nickel and mercury). Mercury was only tested on 15 samples in the Cadia study area tanks compared to all samples in the other two study areas.

2.6. Water Quality Guidelines for Drinking Water

The total metal/metalloid results obtained from laboratory testing of samples from bottom of water tanks were compared with ADWG health guidelines [5] (Table 1). This comparison was completed to provide guidance on the suitability of water collected at the bottom of tanks for drinking water. We compared water sample results against the ADWG health-related guidelines for metals/metalloids including arsenic, lead, cadmium, copper, nickel, manganese and mercury. We used a guideline for chromium of 50 µg L−1, although this is a recommend guideline that, if exceeded, testing for hexavalent chromium should be conducted [5]. We only tested water samples for total chromium and used 50 µg L−1 as a tentative guideline.

2.7. Data Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Variation in water quality and metal attributes was tested for statistical differences according to the three different study areas (Cadia, Narrabri, Mendooran). Some metal attributes were not detected because they were lower than laboratory detection limits. In these cases, for data analysis purposes, the result was assumed to be half of the detection limit. Probability p-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. The water quality results were tested for normality of distribution and were often found to be skewed. In response, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the three groups of samples (Cadia, Narrabri, Mendooran) for each water quality indicator. Any probability values less than 0.05 were considered significant. All statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 30 [42].

2.8. Mine Emissions Reported to National Pollutant Inventory

We referred to the Australian Government’s National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) [31,39] to explore what air emissions were reported for the six mines in two (Cadia and Narrabri) of the three study areas. Each of these mines is required to report their annual pollutant emissions (air and water) for 93 substances to NPI [31,37]. This included several of the metals of human health concern, such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese and mercury, that we also detected in drinking water tanks. The NPI data included solid particulates in the PM10 and PM2.5 categories, both of which are well known to travel as aerosols for very long distances [43,44].

2.9. Cadia Mine Particulate Emissions

Solid particulates were measured in emissions from four of the Cadia underground mine exhaust vents in February–March 2022 [32]. This included the largest, called ‘vent rise 8’. The four exhaust vents were estimated to emit a total of approximately 12 kg of solid particles per minute (Table 1). The majority (91.2%) of the emitted particles were classified in the fine to very fine particle size (PM10, PM2.5, PM1.0). The metal content in the emitted solid particles was also measured. Metals included arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and manganese. The most abundant of these was manganese, that was estimated to be emitted at 371.5 g per minute (Table 1). In contrast, cadmium was the least abundant, as it was estimated to be emitted at 0.03 g per minute.

3. Results

3.1. Water Chemistry

3.1.1. General Water Quality

Water samples were collected from the water tanks and most, generally, had low salinity (Table 2). Salinity was measured as EC and ranged from 7.6 to 494 µS cm−1 with an overall median EC of 19 µS cm−1. Ionic composition was tested in samples collected from 80 tank samples across all three districts. The majority of samples had extremely soft water, often with undetectable concentrations of either calcium or potassium (<1 mg L−1). Only one water tank sample recorded a hardness value indicative of moderate hard water (hardness 60–120 mg L−1); all other samples were classed as soft (hardness < 60 mg L−1). The pH of water varied from 4.1 to 10.25 pH units, with a median pH of 6.08 (Table 2). The pH of tank water varied significantly according to study area, with Cadia water tanks having the highest median pH (7.42), then Mendooran (6.07), and Narrabri was lowest (5.78). Water temperature of tank samples varied from 11.6 to 32.9 °C, with an overall median water temperature of 20.7 °C.
Water tank turbidity was measured in water samples collected from the bottom layer of water tanks (Table 2). Turbidity varied significantly, according to sample location. The lowest median turbidity of 444 was recorded in samples from Narrabri, then Cadia (807), and highest was at Mendooran (1000). The actual turbidity of many samples was not possible to determine as the HACH 2100P Turbidimeter was unable to measure above 1000 NTU. Many of the bottom of water tank samples in the study exceeded 1000 NTU.

3.1.2. Metals and Metalloid

There were 14 metals and one metalloid (arsenic) recorded in water samples collected from the bottom of tanks in this study (Table 2, Figure 5). The concentration of 9 of the 14 metals varied significantly, according to study area. The concentration of arsenic also varied significantly according to study area. The three most abundant metals in this study were iron, aluminium and zinc. Iron median concentration was 30 mg L−1 in Cadia tanks, then Narrabri (18.5 mg L−1) and Mendooran (15 mg L−1). The second most abundant metal detected at the bottom of water tanks was aluminium, which also had the largest concentration in Cadia tanks (median 22.5 mg L−1), then Narrabri (median 14 mg L−1) and Mendooran (median 11 mg L−1).
Water samples collected in this study were tested for several metals that are hazardous for human health at elevated concentrations in drinking water and have recommended drinking water guidelines (ADWG) [5]. This includes seven metals (mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and manganese) and also includes arsenic, classified as a metalloid. Three metals (lead, manganese, nickel) and arsenic were frequently detected at concentrations of potential human health concern (Figure 6).
Lead was detected in >95% of all water samples (Table 3, Figure 6). The majority of lead results (>90%) exceeded the lead ADWG [5] (<10 µg L−1). The Cadia district water tanks had the largest median lead concentration (125 µg L−1) and the largest proportion of samples (95.8%) that exceeded the lead ADWG (<10 µg L−1). Several samples had extreme lead concentrations, with five samples from the Mendooran area recording lead concentrations at, or above, 10,000 µg L−1, exceeding the lead guideline by at least 1000×.
Manganese was detected in all samples in this study (Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 6). Samples from Cadia tanks had the largest proportion (52.1%) with manganese concentrations exceeding the manganese ADWG [5] (<500 µg L−1). In comparison, 29.8% of samples from Mendooran and 26.2% of Mendooran tanks had manganese results exceeding the guideline. The concentration of manganese varied highly significantly, according to study area. The largest median manganese concentration (550 µg L−1) was recorded in Cadia tanks, followed by Narrabri tanks (180 µg L−1) and Mendooran tanks (150 µg L−1).
The majority (>90%) of samples contained measurable concentrations of nickel (Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 6). Overall, 35% of samples had nickel concentration exceeding the ADWG [5] (<20 µg L−1). The concentration of nickel varied significantly according to study area. Cadia had the largest proportion of samples (43.7%) exceeding the nickel ADWG, with 31.9% at Mendooran and 26.2% at Narrabri, also above the guideline. Cadia water samples also had the largest nickel median (18 µg L−1) with Mendooran and Narrabri tanks both recording median nickel concentrations of 11 µg L−1.
The metalloid arsenic was detected in 92% of samples collected in this study (Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 6). Overall, 78.8% of samples contained arsenic at less than the ADWG [5] (<10 µg L−1). The concentration of arsenic varied highly significantly, according to study area. Cadia water tanks recorded the largest median arsenic concentration (6 µg L−1) and the largest proportion of samples exceeding the arsenic ADWG [5] (41.9%). In comparison the median arsenic concentration was 4 µg L−1 in Mendooran tanks and 2 µg L−1 in Narrabri tanks. A total of 25.5% of Mendooran tank samples exceeded the arsenic guidelines and 4.8% of Narrabri samples exceeded the guideline.
The metal cadmium showed a different trend (Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 6). The median concentration of cadmium was greatest in Cadia tanks (0.4 µg L−1), then Mendooran tanks (0.3 µg L−1), and was lowest in Narrabri tanks (0.2 µg L−1). However, the proportion of samples that exceeded the ADWG for cadmium was greatest in the Mendooran samples, with 34% exceeding the guideline. This was considerably greater than results from the other two study areas that both had a similar proportion (16.7–18.3%) of samples exceed the cadmium guideline.

3.2. Comparison of Tank Results with NPI Industrial Emissions Reporting

The largest masses of emissions reported to the NPI for 2023/24, for all six mines, were solid particles in the PM10 and PM2.5 particle size categories (Table 4). The annual mass of PM10 particulates emitted from five Gunnedah study area coal mines ranged from 7000 tonnes from the Maules Creek mine to 980 tonnes. The Cadia gold and copper mine reported 5400 tonnes of particulates in this category (Table 4). The annual mass of finer particulates emitted in 2023/24, in the PM2.5 category, ranged from 140 tonnes from Maules Creek, to 4.1 tonnes from the Narrabri mine. The Cadia gold and copper mine reported emissions of 44 tonnes of fine (PM2.5) particulates (Table 4).
The largest emission of any metal from any of the six mines in this study was reported from the Cadia mine for copper (Table 4). The NPI data reported that Cadia emissions were 64,000 kg in 2023/24. The next largest copper emission was 490 kg from the Maules Creek mine. Many mines reported large emissions of manganese, with the largest (7100 kg) reported from Tarrawonga mine, then 6500 kg from the Cadia mine, and 1000 kg, the smallest, from the Vickery mine. Much smaller loads of cadmium and mercury were emit-ted in 2023/24 from the six mines in the study (Table 4). The Cadia mine reported the largest cadmium (11 kg) and mercury (9.2 kg) annual emissions. The Maules Creek mine had the largest cadmium (1.4 kg) and mercury (5.5 kg) emissions.
The five coal mine operations in the Gunnedah study area reported between 11 and 35 kg of arsenic emissions over 2023/24 (Table 4). In comparison, the CVO mine reported a much larger load of 230 kg of arsenic emissions over the 12-month period. Mercury and cadmium emissions were much smaller. They ranged from 0.48 (cadmium) to 0.45 (mercury) kg in 2023/24 from Vickery Coal mine. The largest cadmium (11 kg) and mercury (9.2 kg) annual emission results were reported from the Cadia mine. The largest emission of lead was reported from the Cadia mine (250 kg) and a similar amount (240 kg) from the Maules Creek mine. The smallest amount of lead was reported from the Vickery mine (56 kg).

4. Discussion

This study revealed that water from the bottom of roof-harvested water tanks used for household drinking water supply in the Cadia area and in two other rural districts in NSW frequently contained substantial metal contamination at concentrations exceeding the ADWG [5]. The median concentration of 11 of the most commonly detected metals in the study was greatest in the Cadia district water tanks, within 0.5 to-32 km of the boundary of the Cadia copper and gold mine. The current study added to sample results collected from an earlier study of water quality at 42 properties supplied by roof-harvested drinking water tanks in the Cadia area [11]. Together the combined data from the previous study and the current one reveal that the metal concentration of water samples collected from the bottom of Cadia district water tanks was substantially poorer than water quality in water tanks in the two other rural areas. Across all three study areas there were seven metals of human health concern that were detected at concentrations exceeding Australian drinking water health guidelines [5]. The metals and metalloid included lead, arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel and manganese. Of these seven, six recorded the highest median concentrations in Cadia district tanks (Table 2).
Consistent with the previous study [11], the majority of water samples in the current study regularly contained hazardous concentrations of lead. Overall, 90.5% of water samples collected from the lower depths of water tanks across all three districts contained lead at concentrations exceeding the Australian health guidelines for lead in drinking water (<10 µg L−1) [5]. Median lead results from the bottom of tanks in all three districts exceeded the lead drinking water guidelines. The median lead results ranged from 82 µg L−1 (Mendooran), more than eight times the lead guideline, to 115 µg L−1 (Narrabri) and 125 µg L−1 (Cadia), more than eleven and more than twelve times the lead guideline. The earlier study of Cadia water tanks [11] recorded a median lead concentration of 100 µg L−1 from bottom-of-tank samples. That study also tested for lead in water supplied from the kitchen tap supplied by the water tank. It found a median lead content of 2.7 µg L−1 in kitchen tap samples [11]. Also in that previous study, two of 43 tap samples (4.7%) collected from Cadia home taps exceeded the ADWG. Many other studies that collected water samples from taps supplied by water tanks have reported similar exceedances of lead drinking water guidelines results. The EPA tested 112 tap samples from Cadia district tanks (June–August 2023) and reported that 2.7% of samples exceeded the lead guideline [12]. Perhaps due to the influence of water tank sediment being mobilised by water inflows, Magyar et al. reported that 16% of samples exceeded the lead guideline, in their study of 49 water tanks from the Melbourne area that were collected two to seven days after rain [8]. The concentrations of lead detected in drinking water tanks in this study are highly elevated and are hazardous to human health. In contrast to these results, lead concentrations in urban metropolitan water supplies in Australia are typically very low. For example, Melbourne Water did not detect lead in water samples at concentrations above 2 µg L−1 collected over a five-year period [45].
In addition to the previous Cadia study [11], several other Australian studies have investigated lead in roof-harvested water tanks [3,4,8]. Many were unable to establish the source of the lead. An exception was a study that successfully found and addressed the cause, a West Australian Government inquiry that reported the cause of the contamination of Esperance water tanks from fallout of lead particulates accumulating on roofs and being washed into tanks from transport and handling of lead ore [6,7]. In a second lead contamination study, conducted on water tanks at Karumba, North Queensland, isotope tests confirmed the source apportionment of lead contamination was shared by nearby mineral processing facilities throughout the town as well as galvanised roof and house plumbing [24]. A study of galvanised steel pipes discussed how often the zinc used also contained lead materials that have been associated with weathering and mobilising lead into drinking water [46]. Lead in household tap water has also been documented in a citizen-science study of first draw water samples collected by householders from their taps in the morning, after at least nine hours of stagnation [21]. That study also recorded elevated copper and lead concentrations in many first draw tap water samples, many at concentrations higher than recommended in drinking water guidelines, that they partly attributed to leaching metals from household plumbing materials and tap fittings into the drinking water [21].
The findings from the current study add further support for the theory, developed in the previous Cadia study [11], that an airborne particulate exposure pathway of metals emitted from the Cadia mine was likely to be responsible for a substantial contribution to the higher concentration of many metals accumulating in the bottom of Cadia district water tanks. The emission of airborne pollutants, such as metals and metalloids, from urban, mining and industrial sites has received insufficient attention in the study of contamination of drinking water tanks from extractive projects generally, with some exceptions [4,6,7,24]. However, some data is already available, as the five coal mines in the Gunnedah area and the Cadia gold and copper mine all report metal and particulate pollutant air emissions under the NPI [31,39]. NPI emissions are reported for a suite of pollutants that includes several metals detected in water tanks in the current study. According to NPI data, the Cadia mine reported air emissions of 64 tonnes of copper in 2023/24 (Table 4) [39]. In comparison, the five coal mines in the Narrabri area reported copper emissions of between 55 to 490 kg for the year [39]. The Cadia district tanks recorded the highest median concentration of copper (274 µg L−1), compared to median concentrations of 120 µg L−1 and 145 µg L−1 in Mendooran and Narrabri tanks. The Cadia mine also reported NPI arsenic emissions of 230 kg, compared to between 11 and 35 kg for 2023/24 from each of the coal mines [39]. The median arsenic concentration was greatest in Cadia tanks (6 µg L−1) compared to Mendooran and Narrabri tanks (4 and 2 µg L−1, respectively). The Cadia mine also reported marginally greater emissions of nickel (230 kg per year) and lead (250 kg per year) compounds, for 2023/24, than any of the Narrabri coal mines [39].
The exact cause, timing, transportation and fate of the metals emitted from each mine (Cadia and Narrabri district) are not known. It is known that airborne metal emissions from mine operations are often associated with dust particulates [43]. The NPI reports the mass of particulate emissions in two size categories (PM2.5 and PM10) from each mine [39]. The load of particulate emissions in the PM10 category ranged from 980 kg per year from Vickery coal mine to 7000 kg from Maules Creek mine [39]. The Cadia mine reported that it emitted 5400 kg of PM10 particulates in 2023/24. However, more precise airborne particulate emission results are now available after an investigation of particulate emissions from the four major underground exhaust vents at the Cadia mine was conducted in early 2022 [32].
Prior to mid-2023, the metal content of Cadia mine airborne particulate emissions was not regulated, or required to be monitored, under the NSW EPA Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) that regulated emissions from the mine (EPL 5590). For example, an earlier (August 2022) version of EPL 5590 only required the monitoring of the mass of airborne particulates of fine particles (PM2.5 and PM10) at four monitoring points and also the deposition mass of airborne particulates at eight monitoring points [47]. After the EPA was informed of the metal contents in the particulate emissions (Table 1) from the underground exhaust vents, the EPL 5590 was updated on 21 June 2023 [47]. The updated EPL required the monitoring, monthly, of the combined mass of ‘Type 1 and 2’ metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, selenium, tin and vanadium) in the largest exhaust vent. At a similar time, filtration of dust particulates from the exhaust vents was installed by the mine [14].
Since the Cadia mine EPL 5590 was revised in August 2023, there have also been investigations into Cadia mine particulate emissions by NSW EPA. Community concerns that the mine was emitting excessive and potentially harmful dust [13,14] resulted in the EPA successfully prosecuting the mine in the NSW Land and Environment Court for excessive dust emissions [17]. The community around the Cadia mine observed an increase in deposition of dust on their property that they attributed to an increase in the severity and frequency of dust lifted from the mine tailings storage area after part of the northern tailings dam wall collapsed in 2018 [48]. NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water conducted a detailed study of air quality in the Cadia area in 2024 for the NSW EPA [49]. The air quality study included testing for metals, but did not detect measurable quantities of several metals (except copper and zinc) in airborne particulates [49]. However, this could have reflected difficulties in air monitoring technology or the effect of earlier actions that were aimed at improving dust management at the mine. In particular, in mid-2023 the Cadia mine installed filtration to reduce emission of particulates from the previously unfiltered exhaust emissions, particularly from the largest exhaust vent ‘vent-riser eight’ [14,32].
A major factor that triggered the EPA revision of EPL 5590 in 2023 and the installation of dust filtration to the main underground exhaust vents was an earlier study commissioned by Cadia mine that provided a detailed analysis of the metals and mass of fine particulates emitted from the Cadia exhaust vents (Table 1) [32]. The particulate emissions from the four main Cadia underground exhaust vents were examined in February/March 2022 [32]. The study confirmed that the particulate contents from the exhaust vents included many of the same metals detected in elevated concentrations in Cadia district water tanks. These included arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. The study also provided the particle sizes of particulates emitted from the vents [32]. Of the approximate 12 kg per minute of particulate emissions released by the four vents, 27% were in the very fine categories (PM2.5 and PM1) (Table 1 [32]). Such small particles are well known to travel very long distances [43,44]. We consider it to be likely that the higher concentration of metals recorded in Cadia district tanks, compared to water tanks in the two other study areas in this current research, was partly due to the airborne emissions of metals from the Cadia mine falling out onto roofs used to harvest drinking water in the surrounding area.
The abundant metal content of Cadia mine particulate emissions was acknowledged by a former Cadia mine manager in a media interview [13]. He explained that the underground ore-crushing dust that was emitted from the largest of the exhaust vents, VR8, captured by filtration, in mid-2023, was highly enriched with metals [13]. The former manager explained to The Guardian journalist that one of the two filtration bag-houses was extracting up to one tonne of metal-enriched dust an hour [13]. The metal content was sufficiently enriched that he was considering having the extracted dust further processed to extract valuable metals [13].
Mercury was recorded in several water tank samples in this study. The highest median concentration of 0.2 µg L−1 was detected in Mendooran region water tanks. One sample recorded the highest maximum concentration (4.8 µg L−1) collected from a Mendooran tank, exceeding the mercury drinking water guideline (1 µg L−1). The frequency of water samples, all collected from the bottom of water tanks, in this study exceeding the ADWG for mercury was very similar, with 15.2% of Mendooran samples exceeding ADWG compared to 13% of water samples from the Cadia tank samples. The previous Cadia study [11] also tested some water samples from kitchen taps, supplied by water tanks, and the maximum concentration of mercury was 0.62 µg L−1, which was compliant with the mercury guideline [5]. That result was similar to an Australia-wide survey of water quality of urban water tanks that reported mercury was only detected, from 45 samples, in a single tank sample on one occasion, at 0.4 µg L−1 [50]. Water samples collected from Mendooran tanks often (34%) exceeded cadmium drinking water guidelines, with one sample recording 260 µg L−1 of cadmium, the most elevated cadmium result in this study, 130 times the ADWG [5]. Few Australian water tank studies have investigated cadmium. One, an Australia-wide survey of urban water tanks, only once detected cadmium in 45 samples, at a concentration well below the drinking water guideline [50]. The source of the elevated mercury or cadmium concentrations found in water tanks in Mendooran is unknown and further investigation is recommended. A potential source could be solar electricity collection panels that were observed on the roof of a Mendooran property that was also used to collect drinking water and had elevated mercury (maximum of 4.8 µg L−1) in water tank samples (personal observation). Mercury and cadmium are both known to have been used in the formulation of some solar panels [51]. Mercury and other hazardous metals have also been found in leaching experiments conducted on end-of-life solar panels [51,52]. Another potential source of mercury is burning of wood for home heating [53], with many roofs in this study observed to also have wood-heating chimneys on the same roof used for harvesting drinking water. It is recommended that investigation should be conducted on the contribution of solar panels and wood-heating chimneys on roofs also used to harvest drinking water.
The Narrabri water tank results only contained one metal, zinc, at a greater median concentration (3.15 mg L−1) than Cadia (median 2.85 mg L−1) or Mendooran (median 2.2 mg L−1) water tanks. Elevated zinc in drinking water can affect the taste of the water, but there are no Australian human health guidelines for zinc in drinking water [5]. Elevated zinc in roof-harvested water tanks is well known to be influenced by weathering of metals from building materials [20,21,22,46]. Zinc is a major component of many roofing materials, water tanks and also coating materials used for galvanised water pipes. Zinc is well known to often be at higher concentrations in water from metal roofing materials and stored in metal water tanks. The rate of zinc leaching from materials is also known to be higher at more acidic pH [20]. Maules Creek (3400 kg in 2023/24) and Boggabri (2800 in 2023/24) coal mines both reported to the NPI the two largest zinc emissions from any of the mines investigated for this study (Table 4 [37]). The leaching of zinc from roof material may also have been influenced [20] by the generally more acidic water, with the median pH of water in Narrabri water tanks (5.78 pH units) being lower than the pH in tanks from the other two districts.

5. Conclusions

We recommend that monitoring technology for dust and metal emissions would benefit from improvement at all mines. Regular measurement of particulate emissions from the Cadia mine, from exhaust stacks and from tailings and other mine operations, needs to be improved and publicly reported. We recommend that the adequacy of current environmental regulation of airborne emissions from the Cadia and other mines by the NSW EPA needs to be improved to reduce the risk of further metal contamination of air quality and nearby household roof-harvested water tanks. The NSW EPA should revise Cadia mine’s EPL 5590 to include improved regulation and monitoring of the metal content, particulates of the more hazardous and mobile size fractions (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0), to provide information on the emission, transport and fallout of mine particulates. Improved methods for roof-harvested drinking water collection systems are also recommended. Regular cleaning of contamination from roof-harvested water tanks is needed. This is particularly in the fallout zone from dusty metal-mining operations. The mining industry should compensate residents for tank cleaning when their operations contribute to contamination. The monitoring of the metal content and size fractions (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0) of particulate emissions from Cadia and similar mine operations needs to be vastly improved to assist in understanding the discharge plume and the fallout of mine particulates within and beyond the boundary of the mine.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.-M.G., A.C. and I.A.W.; methodology, A.-M.G., A.C. and I.A.W.; formal analysis, I.A.W.; investigation, A.-M.G., A.C. and I.A.W.; resources, I.A.W.; data curation, I.A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A.W.; writing—review and editing, A.-M.G., A.C. and I.A.W.; visualisation, I.A.W.; supervision, A.-M.G., and I.A.W.; project administration, I.A.W.; funding acquisition, I.A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received some funding from Cadia Community Sustainability Network for the cost of commercial analysis of samples from the Cadia district water tanks.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon email request.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Cadia Community Sustainability Network for their active participation in many aspects of this project and also for their financial support for commercial testing of some of the water samples. We also thank the communities of the Cadia, Narrabri-Boggabri and Mendooran regions, who generously provided access to their properties and their home water tanks. Thanks to Sue Cusbert and Michael Franklin (Western Sydney University) for their technical assistance with this project. IW was appointed in June 2023 as one of nine independent panel members on the EPA Cadia expert advisory group. We thank Carmel Matheson for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ADWGAustralian Drinking Water Guideline
EPANSW Environment Protection Authority
EPLEnvironment Protection Licence
NPINational Pollutant Inventory

References

  1. enHealth. Guidance on Use of Rainwater Tanks; Department of Health, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2010; pp. 1–64. ISBN 978-1-74241-325-9. Available online: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/07/enhealth-guidance-guidance-on-the-use-of-rainwater-tanks.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  2. Chapman, H.; Cartwright, T.; Huston, R.; O’Toole, J. Water Quality and Health Risks from Urban Rainwater Tanks. CRC for Water Quality and Treatment. Research Report 42. 2008. Available online: https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/hawaiirain/Library/papers/Non-conference%20papers/report42_WQ_health_risks_rainwater.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  3. Chubaka, C.E.; Whiley, H.; Edwards, J.W.; Ross, K.E. Lead, zinc, copper, and cadmium content of water from South Australian rainwater tanks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Huston, R.; Chan, Y.C.; Chapman, H.; Gardner, T.; Shaw, G. Source apportionment of heavy metals and ionic contaminants in rainwater tanks in a subtropical urban area in Australia. Water Res. 2012, 46, 1121–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). Paper 6 National Water Quality Management Strategy. National Health and Medical Research Council, National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 2011. Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-drinking-water-guidelines (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  6. Heyworth, J.S.; Mullan, N. Environmental lead and nickel contamination of tank rainwater in Esperance, Western Australia: An evaluation of the cleaning program. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2009, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Western Australia Legislative Assembly. Inquiry into the Cause and Extent of Lead Pollution in the Esperance Area. Report No. 8 in the 37th Parliament 2007. Available online: https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/(WebInquiries)/28F900665F5C386048257831003E970C?opendocument (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  8. Magyar, M.I.; Mitchell, V.G.; Ladson, A.R.; Diaper, C. Lead and other heavy metals: Common contaminants of rainwater tanks in Melbourne. Water Down Under Conference. In Proceedings of the 31st Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium and 4th International Conference on Water Resources and Environmental Research, Adelaide, Australia, 14–17 April 2008; pp. 409–417. [Google Scholar]
  9. World Health Organization (WHO). Lead Poisoning and Health Factsheet. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  10. Government of Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document—Lead. 2019. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document-lead.html (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  11. Wright, I.A.; Christie, A.; Gilpin, A.-M. Water Quality of Roof-Harvested Drinking Water Tanks in a Rural Area near a Gold and Copper Mine: Potential Health Risk from a Layer of Metal-Enriched Water and Sediment. Water 2024, 16, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. NSW Environment Protection Authority. An Investigation into Metals in Domestic Tank Water around the Newmont Gold Mine in Cadia. 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/23p4476-tank-water-metals-at-cadia.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  13. NSW Environment Protection Authority. An Investigation into Metals in Sediments from Domestic Rainwater Tanks Around the Newmont Gold Mine in Cadia. 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/23p4477-tank-sediment-metals-at-cadia.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2025).
  14. Connick, F. Inside Cadia, The NSW Goldmine at the Centre of an Environmental Dust-Up. The Guardian. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/15/inside-cadia-the-nsw-goldmine-at-centre-of-an-environmental-dust-up (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  15. ABC 730 Program (Australian Broadcasting Commission) Dust-Up. Residents Questioning the Health Impacts of a Nearby Gold Mine. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAcdoEuWFwk&ab_channel=ABCNewsIn-depth (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  16. Hambrett, M. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission). Cadia Gold Mine Fined $350,000 for Breaching Air Pollution Regulations. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-31/cadia-gold-mine-newmont-corporation-fined-for-air-pollution/105115918 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  17. NSW Environment Protection Authority. Cadia Holdings Ordered to Pay over $400,000 for Air Emissions Offences. Available online: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/epamedia/250402-cadia-holdings-ordered-to-pay-over-400-000-for-air-emissions-offences (accessed on 27 October 2025).
  18. Magyar, M.I.; Ladson, A.R.; Mitchell, V.G.; Diaper, C. The Effect of Rainwater Tank Design on Sediment Re-Suspension and Subsequent Outlet Water Quality, Australas. J. Water Resour. 2001, 15, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ho, C.K.; Christian, J.M.; Ching, E.J.; Slavin, J.; Ortega, J.; Murray, R.; Rossman, L.A. Sediment Resuspension and Transport in Water Distribution Storage Tanks. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 2016, 108, E349–E361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McIntyre, J.K.; Winters, N.; Rozmyn, L.; Haskins, T.; Stark, J.D. Metals leaching from common residential and commercial roofing materials across four years of weathering and implications for environmental loading. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255, 113262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Harvey, P.J.; Handley, H.K.; Taylor, M.P. Widespread copper and lead contamination of household drinking water, New South Wales, Australia. Environ. Res. 2016, 151, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Magyar, M.; Ladson, T.; Diaper, C.; Mitchell, V.G. Influence of roofing materials and lead flashing on rainwater tank contamination by metals. Australas. J. Water Resour. 2014, 18, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grzegorzek, M.; Wartalska, K.; Szymczewski, S.; Żywiec, J.; Szpak, D.; Kaźmierczak, B. Rainwater quality in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Poland. Environ. Pollut. 2025, 370, 125866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gulson, B.; Korsch, M.; Bradshaw, A. Impact of Dust from Ore Processing Facilities on Rain Water Collection Tanks in a Tropical Environment—The Obvious Source “Ain’t Necessarily So”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Cadia Valley Operations. Isotope Report Fact Sheet. Newcrest Mining Limited. 2023. Available online: https://media.caapp.com.au/pdf/3tit2x/a3821a62-91e8-4b46-821b-56541f40f79a/Isotope%20Report%20Fact%20sheet.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  26. Connick, F. Newcrest’s Lead Contamination Claims ‘Inconsistent’ with Expert Report Findings, Its Author Says. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/21/newcrest-cadia-hill-lead-contamination-expert-report-findings (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  27. NSW EPA. Cadia Region Lead Isotope (Tank Sediment Testing) Report; NSW Environment Protection Authority: Parramatta, NSW, Australis, 2024. Available online: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/24p4536-cadia-region-lead-isotope-tank-sediment-testing.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  28. Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Statistics for Orange Agricultural Institute. Available online: https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_063254.shtml (accessed on 23 October 2025).
  29. Cadia East Project Environmental Assessment. Section One. 2009. Available online: https://www.cadiavalley.com.au/newcrest/cvo/statutory-approvals/cadia-east-project-approval (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  30. NSW EPA. (Environment Protection Authority) (2025) Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 5590. Available online: https://app.epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/ViewPOEOLicence.aspx?DOCID=323883&SYSUID=1&LICID=5590 (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  31. Australian Government. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/npi (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  32. Cadia Mine. Mine Vent Emissions Study. Report Number R012219 [Draft 2] Ektimo. Appendix E in: Cadia Valley Operations. Independent Air Quality Audit. by Zephyr Environmental. 11 August 2022. Available online: https://media.caapp.com.au/tnwrjx.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2025).
  33. Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Statistics for Narrabri West Post Office. Available online: https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_053030.shtml (accessed on 23 October 2025).
  34. NSW EPA (Environment Protection Authority) Namoi Air Quality Monitoring Project. Available online: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/Your-environment/Air/regional-air-quality/namoi-air-quality-monitoring-project (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  35. Australian Government. Bioregional Assessments. Coal. 2018. Page 8. Available online: https://www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/assessments/12-resource-assessment-namoi-subregion/1221-coal (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  36. NSW Planning Assessment Commission. Project Approval, Maules Creek Coal Project. 2012. Available online: https://whitehavencoal.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MCC-Project-Approval-PA-10_0138-consolidated.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  37. NSW EPA. (Environment Protection Authority) (2025) EPL 20221. Available online: https://app.epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/ViewPOEOLicence.aspx?DOCID=291420&SYSUID=1&LICID=20221 (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  38. NSW Health. Particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5). Available online: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/air/Pages/particulate-matter.aspx (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  39. Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. NPI National Pollutant Industry Data. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/npi/data (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  40. Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Statistics for Dunedoo Post Office. Available online: https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_064009.shtml. (accessed on 23 October 2025).
  41. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Mendooran. 2021 Census. Available online: https://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL12581 (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  42. IBM Corporation, SPSS Statistics Version 30. 2024. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-30 (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  43. Csavina, J.; Field, J.; Taylor, M.P.; Gao, S.; Landazuri, A.; Betterton, E.A.; Saez, A.E. A review on the importance of metals and metalloids in atmospheric dust and aerosol from mining operations. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 433, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Winton, V.H.L.; Charlier, B.L.A.; Jolly, B.H.; Purdie, H.; Anderson, B.; Hunt, J.E.; Dadic, R.; Taylor, S.; Petherick, L.; Novis, P.M. New Zealand Southern Alps blanketed by red Australian dust during 2019/2020 severe bushfire and dust event. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2024, 51, e2024GL112782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Melbourne Water. Typical Analysis of Melbourne’s Waters. Available online: https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/Typical-water-analysis-data-2016.docx (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  46. Clark, B.; Masters, S.; Edwards, M. Lead Release to Drinking Water from Galvanized Steel Pipe Coatings. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2015, 32, 150610093121004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. NSW EPA Notice of Variation of Licence 5590. Notice Number 1630908. Available online: https://app.epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/ViewPOEONotice.aspx?DOCID=-1&SYSUID=1&LICID=1630908 (accessed on 22 September 2025).
  48. Hambrett, M. ABC News. Newcrest’s Cadia Gold Mine Tailings Dam Collapse in 2018 Causing Concern. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-20/cadia-residents-exposed-to-tailings-dust/100078334 (accessed on 7 October 2025).
  49. NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Air Quality Monitoring Program in Cadia Area: Initial Report. Report to the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Available online: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/air-quality-monitoring-program-cadia-valley-initial-report-240242.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2025).
  50. Chapman, H.F.; Gardner, T.; Huston, R.; Chan, A.Y.; Shaw, G.R. Chemical Water Quality and Health Risk Assessment of Urban Rainwater Tanks, 7th International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling and the 4th International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design. 2006. Available online: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/items/6f124286-0e34-5097-89dd-b26ee72f672f (accessed on 22 September 2025).
  51. Basol, B.; Tseng, E. Mercury cadmium telluride solar cell with 10.6% efficiency. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1986, 48, 946–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brown, F.C.; Bi, Y.; Chopra, S.S.; Hristovski, K.D.; Westerhoff, P.; Theis, T.L. End-of-Life Heavy Metal Releases from Photovoltaic Panels and Quantum Dot Films: Hazardous Waste Concerns or Not? ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 9369–9374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huang, J.; Hopke, P.K.; Choi, H.-D.; Laing, J.R.; Cui, H.; Zananski, T.J.; Chandrasekaran, S.R.; Rattigan, O.V.; Holsen, T.M. Mercury (Hg) emissions from domestic biomass combustion for space heating. Chemosphere 2011, 84, 1694–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 17 03188 g001
Figure 1. Map of study areas. (a) Narrabri study area. Yellow circles are mine location. 1: Narrabri Mine. 2: Maules Creek Mine. 3: Boggabri Mine. 4: Tarrawonga Mine. 5: Vickery Mine.; (b) Cadia study area. Yellow circle is Cadia mine; (c) Mendooran study area; (d) Study areas in relation to NSW; Red triangle symbols show approximate geographical spread of tanks investigated but do not correspond to exact location or number of samples. Base maps from Google Maps and Geoscience Australia.
Figure 1. Map of study areas. (a) Narrabri study area. Yellow circles are mine location. 1: Narrabri Mine. 2: Maules Creek Mine. 3: Boggabri Mine. 4: Tarrawonga Mine. 5: Vickery Mine.; (b) Cadia study area. Yellow circle is Cadia mine; (c) Mendooran study area; (d) Study areas in relation to NSW; Red triangle symbols show approximate geographical spread of tanks investigated but do not correspond to exact location or number of samples. Base maps from Google Maps and Geoscience Australia.
Water 17 03188 g001
Water 17 03188 g002
Figure 2. Showing PVC BioBailer immediately after it had captured a water sample from bottom of the water tank pictured beside the outlet of that tank used to supply drinking water to the house: (a) Sample collected from plastic water tank (Photo Alex Wright); (b) Sample collected from galvanised metal water tank (Photo Ian Wright).
Figure 2. Showing PVC BioBailer immediately after it had captured a water sample from bottom of the water tank pictured beside the outlet of that tank used to supply drinking water to the house: (a) Sample collected from plastic water tank (Photo Alex Wright); (b) Sample collected from galvanised metal water tank (Photo Ian Wright).
Water 17 03188 g002
Water 17 03188 g003
Figure 3. Retrieving the PVC BioBailer, through the tank access cover, that had just captured a water sample from the bottom of the water tank. Photo Fleur Connick.
Figure 3. Retrieving the PVC BioBailer, through the tank access cover, that had just captured a water sample from the bottom of the water tank. Photo Fleur Connick.
Water 17 03188 g003
Water 17 03188 g004
Figure 4. Collection of water samples from water tanks. The bottom of the tank samples were often near the tank water outlet to the house (figure adapted from [11]).
Figure 4. Collection of water samples from water tanks. The bottom of the tank samples were often near the tank water outlet to the house (figure adapted from [11]).
Water 17 03188 g004
Water 17 03188 g005
Figure 5. Median (plus interquartile range) metal or metalloid concentration, by sample district, for (a) arsenic, (b) lead, (c) manganese, (d) nickel, (e) chromium, (f) copper. Median is red if it exceeds the ADWG guideline for that metal or metalloid and green if it is less than the ADWG guideline. Dotted line indicates the maximum guideline value. Probability value of significant differences, by study area, is provided.
Figure 5. Median (plus interquartile range) metal or metalloid concentration, by sample district, for (a) arsenic, (b) lead, (c) manganese, (d) nickel, (e) chromium, (f) copper. Median is red if it exceeds the ADWG guideline for that metal or metalloid and green if it is less than the ADWG guideline. Dotted line indicates the maximum guideline value. Probability value of significant differences, by study area, is provided.
Water 17 03188 g005
Water 17 03188 g006
Figure 6. Proportion of sample results for arsenic, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, chromium, cadmium and mercury that exceed ADWG health guidelines. Results are compared by study area: (a) Cadia, (b) Mendooran and (c) Narrabri. Results are coloured according to percentage of samples that exceeded the guideline: blue for <10%, yellow (10–20%), orange (20–40%) and red (>40%). Note: The chromium ADWG requires testing samples for the hexavalent form of chromium, which we did not do. We used 50 µg L−1 as a conservative chromium guideline.
Figure 6. Proportion of sample results for arsenic, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, chromium, cadmium and mercury that exceed ADWG health guidelines. Results are compared by study area: (a) Cadia, (b) Mendooran and (c) Narrabri. Results are coloured according to percentage of samples that exceeded the guideline: blue for <10%, yellow (10–20%), orange (20–40%) and red (>40%). Note: The chromium ADWG requires testing samples for the hexavalent form of chromium, which we did not do. We used 50 µg L−1 as a conservative chromium guideline.
Water 17 03188 g006
Table 1. Emission of particulates from Cadia underground mine exhaust vents (vent risers ‘VR’) and classified according to mass of particulates by particle sizes (PM10, PM2.5, PM1.0) and metal content. Measured as mass emitted in grams per minute [32].
Table 1. Emission of particulates from Cadia underground mine exhaust vents (vent risers ‘VR’) and classified according to mass of particulates by particle sizes (PM10, PM2.5, PM1.0) and metal content. Measured as mass emitted in grams per minute [32].
VR8VR7VR5VR3Total
Arsenic0.13<BD<BD0.0160.146
Barium1.50.110.0810.181.87
Cadmium0.017<BD0.00570.00730.03
Chromium0.710.080.0390.110.939
Lead1.30.0640.650.0722.086
Manganese3700.310.0891.1371.5
Nickel0.520.0920.0932.7
Total Solid Particles11,0002202377012,013
PM106900160126207692
PM2.52300464.42402590.4
PM1.0600110.6161672.6
Table 2. Summary statistics for water testing results. Range (minimum–maximum); mean (median) of pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured in top-of-tank samples only and 15 metal/metalloid results collected from the bottom of tanks from three different study areas. Results are emboldened if statistically different, using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, by location (Cadia, Narrabri, Mendooran).
Table 2. Summary statistics for water testing results. Range (minimum–maximum); mean (median) of pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured in top-of-tank samples only and 15 metal/metalloid results collected from the bottom of tanks from three different study areas. Results are emboldened if statistically different, using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, by location (Cadia, Narrabri, Mendooran).
NarrabriCadiaMendooran
Attribute (Units)KW Value (Probability)RangeMean (Median)RangeMean (Median)RangeMean (Median)
pH (pH units)(<0.001)4.29–8.075.90 (5.78)5.5–9.947.48 (7.42)4.1–10.256.41 (6.07)
EC (µS cm−1)(0.422)7.6–49449.8 (17.8)9.1–199.834.3 (21.85)12–9531.7 (20.5)
Turbidity (NTU)(0.008)0.72–>1000512 (444)37.2–>1000670 (807)4.4–>1000649 (1000)
Arsenic (µg L−1)(<0.001)Bd.—173.4 (2)Bd.—9412.1 (6)Bd.—406.9 (4)
Aluminium (mg L−1)(0.052)0.09–8420.6 (14)1.5–16035 (22.5)0.01–18029.3 (11)
Iron (mg L−1)(0.04)0.09–13025.5 (18.5)2.4–20048.4 (30)0.005–45043.9 (15)
Manganese (mg L−1)(<0.001)0.012–2.20.347 (0.18)0.034–151.21 (0.55)0.011–120.878 (0.15)
Barium (µg L−1)(0.044)3–1200177 (85)10–2500273 (140)2–1200203 (57)
Cadmium (µg L−1)(0.60)Bd.—241.42 (0.2)Bd.—361.95 (0.4)Bd.—26011 (0.3)
Chromium (µg L−1)(0.011)Bd.—39046.1 (22)5–2000141.1 (49)Bd.—69086.5 (37)
Copper (µg L−1)(0.195)1–2100285 (145)11–5800511 (275)1–8600578 (120)
Nickel (µg L−1)(0.039)Bd.—10017.6 (11)2–12027.5 (18)Bd.—24029.6 (11)
Lead (µg L−1)(0.947)Bd.—5700430 (115)7–8900661 (125)Bd.—14,0002219 (82)
Strontium (µg L−1)(0.006)3.2–29062.4 (12.2)5.1–750100.4 (47)1.1–44073.7 (30)
Mercury (µg L−1)(<0.001)Bd.—0.20.06 (Bd.)Bd.—1.20.20 (Bd.)Bd.—4.80.63 (0.2)
Molybdenum (µg L−1)(<0.001)Bd.—10.52 (Bd.)Bd.—30.91 (Bd.)Bd.—30.61 (Bd.)
Selenium (µg L−1)(0.004)Bd.—40.86 (Bd.)Bd.—81.44 (Bd.)Bd.—122.44 (Bd.)
Zinc (mg L−1)(0.967)0.13–15010.3 (3.15)0.1–18013.25 (2.85)0.14–40046.6 (2.2)
Note: Bd. = below detection.
Table 3. Comparison of results for seven metals, and one metalloid (arsenic), detected in the study with human health-related ADWG guidelines [5]. The proportion (%) of samples with detectable concentrations (>LOR) within each study area is provided. The proportion of samples exceeding the ADWG for each metal is given. * Note: ADWG guideline for chromium of 50 µg L−1 is a recommended guideline for hexavalent chromium. If results exceed 50 µg L−1 for total chromium, testing for hexavalent chromium is recommended. We tested only for total chromium.
Table 3. Comparison of results for seven metals, and one metalloid (arsenic), detected in the study with human health-related ADWG guidelines [5]. The proportion (%) of samples with detectable concentrations (>LOR) within each study area is provided. The proportion of samples exceeding the ADWG for each metal is given. * Note: ADWG guideline for chromium of 50 µg L−1 is a recommended guideline for hexavalent chromium. If results exceed 50 µg L−1 for total chromium, testing for hexavalent chromium is recommended. We tested only for total chromium.
Metal or MetalloidADWG
Guidelines		NarrabriCadiaMendooran
% Samples > LOR % Samples > ADWG % Samples > LOR % Samples > ADWG% Samples > LOR % Samples > ADWG
Arsenic<10 µg L−1814.89441.97725.5
Cadmium<2.0 µg L−164.316.791.218.785.134
Copper<2000 µg L−1 1002.41004.11004.3
Lead<10 µg L−197.688.110095.895.785.1
Nickel<20 µg L−190.526.210043.791.531.9
Manganese<500 µg L−110026.210052.110029.8
Mercury<1.0 µg L−139.5042.46.167.413
* Chromium<50 µg L−197.6191005089.438.3
Table 4. NPI emission results (in kg for 2023/24) for 11 pollutants, including two sizes of particulate emissions from five coal mines and Cadia gold and copper mine [30,35]. The NSW EPA EPL number for each mine is also provided. t = tonnes emitted in 2023/24.
Table 4. NPI emission results (in kg for 2023/24) for 11 pollutants, including two sizes of particulate emissions from five coal mines and Cadia gold and copper mine [30,35]. The NSW EPA EPL number for each mine is also provided. t = tonnes emitted in 2023/24.
Coal Mines in Narrabri Study AreaCadia Study Area
BoggabriVickeryTarrawongaNarrabriMaules CreekCadia Mines
Licence NoEPL12407EPL21283EPL12365EPL12789EPL 20221EPL5590
Arsenic2011241435230
Cadmium0.930.481.10.611.411
Copper400551306049064,000
Chromium48092240110610310
Lead1606014075240250
Manganese130010002900130071006500
Mercury3.80.450.930.455.59.2
Nickel1405614072200230
Zinc280021054032034001700
PM10 (t)55009802700100070005400
PM2.5 (t)8215364.114044
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wright, I.A.; Christie, A.; Gilpin, A.-M. Accumulation of Metal Contaminants in Rural Roof-Harvested Drinking Water Tanks in the Vicinity of a Metal Mine and Coal Mines. Water 2025, 17, 3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17223188

AMA Style

Wright IA, Christie A, Gilpin A-M. Accumulation of Metal Contaminants in Rural Roof-Harvested Drinking Water Tanks in the Vicinity of a Metal Mine and Coal Mines. Water. 2025; 17(22):3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17223188

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wright, Ian A., Anna Christie, and Amy-Marie Gilpin. 2025. "Accumulation of Metal Contaminants in Rural Roof-Harvested Drinking Water Tanks in the Vicinity of a Metal Mine and Coal Mines" Water 17, no. 22: 3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17223188

APA Style

Wright, I. A., Christie, A., & Gilpin, A.-M. (2025). Accumulation of Metal Contaminants in Rural Roof-Harvested Drinking Water Tanks in the Vicinity of a Metal Mine and Coal Mines. Water, 17(22), 3188. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17223188

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