TABLE 2—
Tap Water Source Type | Median | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | 90th Percentile | CV | Parts per Billion | No. Samples | ||
% > 1 | % > 10 | % > 15 | ||||||||
Kitchen/cafeteria/food preparation sink | 0.4 | 2.8 | < 0.1 | 3 930.0 | 3.4 | 15.9 | 30 | 4 | 2 | 9 685 |
Water fountain | 0.2 | 2.3 | < 0.1 | 1 503.0 | 2.1 | 11.0 | 19 | 3 | 2 | 5 321 |
Classroom sink (no food preparation) | 0.3 | 1.7 | < 0.1 | 929.4 | 2.8 | 8.6 | 23 | 3 | 2 | 5 062 |
Bathroom sink | 0.3 | 1.8 | < 0.1 | 94.0 | 2.9 | 3.6 | 25 | 4 | 2 | 1 690 |
Playground/outside spigot | 0.2 | 8.4 | < 0.1 | 2 717.0 | 6.9 | 12.5 | 26 | 8 | 5 | 792 |
Miscellaneous/unidentified | 0.3 | 2.4 | < 0.1 | 94.3 | 3.1 | 4.1 | 27 | 4 | 2 | 203 |
Water bottle filler | 0.1 | 0.2 | < 0.1 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 71 |
Staff/lounge sink | 0.6 | 1.3 | < 0.1 | 15.1 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 31 | 2 | 2 | 62 |
Laundry/janitorial/utility sink | 0.6 | 10.1 | < 0.1 | 247.8 | 9.6 | 4.4 | 32 | 10 | 6 | 31 |
Ice maker | 0.8 | 2.8 | < 0.1 | 22.0 | 7.7 | 1.9 | 47 | 5 | 5 | 19 |
Bottled water | 0.1 | 0.1 | < 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Filtered samplesa | 0.2 | 1.8 | < 0.1 | 620 | 2.7 | 8.0 | 22 | 3 | 2 | 2 214 |
Unfiltered samplesa | 0.3 | 2.7 | < 0.1 | 3 930 | 3.1 | 14.9 | 26 | 3 | 2 | 20 240 |
All samples | 0.3 | 2.6 | < 0.1 | 3 930 | 3.0 | 14.7 | 25 | 3 | 2 | 22 943 |
Note. CV = coefficient of variation. Concentrations are shown in ppb. We instructed participants to list only drinking or cooking taps in the enrollment survey. If they listed taps that seemed unlikely to be used for consumption, we still analyzed the samples to err on the side of caution. When first-draw samples exceeded the North Carolina hazard level, a local or state health official collected follow-up samples. We did not include these follow-up samples in our analysis, which focused on the initial statewide testing using Environmental Protection Agency’s training, testing, and taking action guidance.
489 samples were missing designation as filtered or unfiltered.