. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Sci Total Environ. 2016 Apr 30;563-564:131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.112

Table 4.

Mitigation options and total urinary arsenic levels one year after nutritional trial ended. Mitigation action analysis excludes 17 participants only “sometimes” using their filter.

Still using filter?	n	Revisit uAs Median (μg/L)	Revisit uAs Range (μg/L)	Revisit vs Baseline		Revisit vs Week 24
Still using filter?	n	Revisit uAs Median (μg/L)	Revisit uAs Range (μg/L)	Percent change in uAs	p-value	Percent change in uAs	p-value
Yes, always	12	65	19–302	−40%	0.0367	−52%	0.0092
Yes, sometimes	17	75	7–518	−38%	0.1181	−14%	0.6580
No	566	98	5–1429	−28%	<.0001	−27%	<.0001
Mitigation action
Switched to low-As well	10	63	6–87	−66%	0.0151	−69%	0.0057
Always uses filter	12	65	19–302	−40%	0.0367	−52%	0.0092
No action	556	102	5–1429	−20%	<.0001	−25%	<.0001