NEHA April 2023 Journal of Environmental Health

ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE

FIGURE 2

Example of the Pictorial Format Used to Present Results to Study Participants of Soil Testing for Toxic Metals

Metals in Your Soil

All results are presented in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

Arsenic

Cadmium

Lead

Manganese

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 , 000 1 , 200 1 , 400 1 , 600 1 , 800 2 , 000

1,900

1,600

0 200 400 600 800

166

Your Soil Compared to EPA Regional Screening Levels Any results with a gr a y background are considered to be above the federal screening level for that contaminant. Contaminant Screening Level Your Soil Arsenic 40 92 Cadmium 78 0 Lead 1 , 600 166 Manganese 1 , 900 21

Legend

Your Soil EPA Regional Screening Level

Well Empowered Research Study | UNC Superfund Research Program | 2017 Note . All soil sample analysis was conducted at the EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory.

Note. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; UNC = University of North Carolina.

In response to concerns about local indus- trial contamination, approximately one half of Well Empowered participants (49%, n = 19) had previously tested their wells for met- als and a subset indicated they did not under- stand prior results that were provided in a text or table format by local agencies, state agencies, or private laboratories. These par- ticipants found results “confusing” or noted that they “didn’t know how to read it.” In the Well Empowered study, partici- pants received printed report-back materials

explaining the extent to which toxic met- als were present in samples. Based on some participants’ prior experiences of confusion, the research team aimed to develop materials that were understandable and could inform appropriate health-protective actions. Each packet contained: • Pictorial results showing exceedances of rel- evant federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), secondary MCLs, treatment tech- niques, or state groundwater standards or health screening levels (Figures 1 and 2).

• Table of complete results for each water and soil sample. • Fact sheets that explained health risks of exposure to contaminants that exceeded standards or guidelines. • Definitions of terms that included dierent types of standards and guidelines. Packets were distributed at a community presentation where aggregated results were shared with study participants and other residents (Figure 3). Research team members met individually with participants to explain

Volume 85 • Number 8