Chlorine Water Taste Threshold and Acceptability among Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Populations in Rural Panama.

Although gains in access to water services over the past two decades have been large, more than two billion people still lack access to safely managed drinking water. This study examines and compares free chlorine taste and acceptability thresholds of rural Indigenous Ngäbe and rural Latino Panamanians to study if taste aversion may be a limiting factor in chlorination of community systems in Panama using the three-alternative forced choice test methodology. This study is the first to establish a best-estimate taste threshold for a rural Indigenous group and the only study in Latin America to report best-estimate taste thresholds using those methods. Median taste thresholds were 0.87 mg/L Cl2 for Indigenous Ngäbe participants (n = 82) and 1.64 mg/L Cl2 for Latino participants (n = 64), higher than both the minimum concentration for biologically safe water (0.2 mg/L) and the recommended concentration range in Panama (0.3-0.8 mg/L). Median acceptability thresholds were established much higher than taste thresholds at 3.45 mg/L Cl2. The results show that the ability to accurately taste chlorine may not be the limiting factor for adoption of safe water initiatives in remote and Indigenous communities.

Using a relative health indicator (RHI) metric to estimate health risk reductions in drinking water.

When a new drinking water regulation is being developed, the USEPA conducts a health risk reduction and cost analysis to, in part, estimate quantifiable and non-quantifiable cost and benefits of the various regulatory alternatives. Numerous methodologies are available for cumulative risk assessment ranging from primarily qualitative to primarily quantitative. This research developed a summary metric of relative cumulative health impacts resulting from drinking water, the relative health indicator (RHI). An intermediate level of quantification and modeling was chosen, one which retains the concept of an aggregated metric of public health impact and hence allows for comparisons to be made across "cups of water," but avoids the need for development and use of complex models that are beyond the existing state of the science. Using the USEPA Six-Year Review data and available national occurrence surveys of drinking water contaminants, the metric is used to test risk reduction as it pertains to the implementation of the arsenic and uranium maximum contaminant levels and quantify "meaningful" risk reduction. Uranium represented the threshold risk reduction against which national non-compliance risk reduction was compared for arsenic, nitrate, and radium. Arsenic non-compliance is most significant and efforts focused on bringing those non-compliant utilities into compliance with the 10 µg/L maximum contaminant level would meet the threshold for meaningful risk reduction.