Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan;112(1):88–97. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306561

TABLE 3—

Generalized Additive Model Results Estimating the Association Between Sociodemographic Variables and 2011–2019 Mean Groundwater Contaminant Levels Among Domestic Well Areas: California

Dependent Variables Arsenic ≥ 1/2 MCL (n = 1782), PRa (95% CI) Nitrate ≥ 1/2 MCL (n = 1917), PR (95% CI) Cr(VI) ≥ 1/2 MCL (n = 1597), PR (95% CI) Cumulative Contaminant Indexb (n = 1587), Bc (95% CI)
% Latinxd 1.13 (1.05, 1.21) 1.19 (1.11, 1.28) 1.23 (1.13, 1.34) 0.14 (0.09, 0.19)
% non-Latinx people of colord 1.21 (1.07, 1.37) 1.07 (0.93, 1.24) 1.11 (0.94, 1.30) 0.10 (0.01, 0.19)
% renterd 1.07 (0.99, 1.16) 1.06 (0.98, 1.16) 1.06 (0.95, 1.17) 0.07 (0.01, 0.12)
Central Coaste 0.96 (0.37, 2.48) 0.82 (0.35, 1.91) . . .f 0.22 (‒0.42, 0.86)
Eastern Sierra 0.83 (0.31, 2.25) 0.14 (0.01, 1.40) . . .f 0.10 (‒0.60, 0.80)
Imperial Valley and Mojave Desert 2.48 (0.34, 18.16) 1.13 (0.15, 8.56) . . .f 0.04 (‒1.21, 1.28)
Northern California 0.51 (0.18, 1.50) 0.41 (0.07, 2.28) . . .f −0.37 (‒1.14, 0.40)
Northern Sierra 1.30 (0.56, 3.00) 1.11 (0.33, 3.77) . . .f 0.41 (‒0.22, 1.04)
San Joaquin Valley 1.91 (0.91, 3.99) 1.31 (0.55, 3.12) . . .f 0.90 (0.37, 1.44)
Southern California 2.58 (0.61, 10.96) 0.17 (0.04, 0.30) . . .f 0.04 (‒0.90, 0.97)
AIC 1 700.72 1 466.24 1 028.27 6 339.41
Log-likelihood −821.32 (df = 29.05) −702.40 (df = 30.72) −492.48 (df = 21.66) −3140.16 (df = 29.55)
Moran’s I P .82 .63 .96 .54

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; CI = confidence interval; MCL = maximum contaminant level. The California MCL for arsenic is 10 µg/L. The MCL for nitrate as N is 10 mg/L. Cr(VI) does not currently have an MCL; we used the most recent MCL of 10 µg/L, which was rescinded in 2017 and is in the process of being revised.

a

PRs are prevalence ratios obtained by exponentiating the binomial model regression coefficients.

b

The cumulative contaminant index (CCI) is the sum of individual mean contaminant concentrations (arsenic, nitrate, and Cr[VI]) divided by half of their respective MCLs. CCI ranged from 0.0 to 112.6 with a mean of 1.8 across all DWAs in the state.

c

Estimates represent a mean difference obtained from Gaussian model regression coefficients.

d

Continuous dependent variables were scaled by 10%.

e

Comparison group is the San Francisco Bay Area region.

f

Region excluded from this model because Cr(VI) is a more localized contaminant than arsenic or nitrate.