Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep;112(Suppl 7):S695–S705. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.307003

TABLE 2—

Summary of First-Draw Lead Level Results by Sample Location for 4005 Child Care Facilities: North Carolina, July 2020–October 2021

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.

a

489 samples were missing designation as filtered or unfiltered.