What’s In Your Water? An Independent Assessment of Water Quality in Major U.S. Cities and University Campuses

1. Overview

Scientific Rationale and Importance:

While U.S. water authorities routinely publish compliance data, widespread public concern persists over underreported contaminants and overly permissive regulatory thresholds. Recent studies suggest that emerging pollutants such as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and microplastics are increasingly present in treated municipal water supplies. This project aims to independently measure the quality of tap water in major U.S. cities and university campuses. We will test for PFAS, heavy metals, fluoride, and microbiological contamination using certified lab kits. A transparent, health-based scorecard will be created to provide a digestible interpretation of results and increase public accountability.

Our selection of 15 of the largest U.S. cities and 10 of the largest university campuses captures a wide cross-section of the U.S. population, infrastructure types, and geographic diversity. Cities and campuses will be selected from different regions (e.g., Northeast, Midwest, South, West) to examine regional disparities and the specific vulnerabilities of aging campus infrastructure.

Funding, Facilities, and Ethics Approvals:

The project will be supported by a $50,000 grant. All lab analyses will be conducted via SimpleLab (Tap Score), an EPA-compliant facility. No direct human subjects are involved; IRB exemption will be sought via expedited pathway.

Estimated Timeline:

Month 1: Finalize site list, ethics exemption, order kits
Month 2: Collect duplicate samples at 25 locations (50 total)
Months 3–4: Receive and organize lab results
Month 5: Develop scorecard and prepare results for publication
Month 6: Public release on Zenodo and ResearchHub; summary dissemination

Data Sharing Commitment: Full de-identified raw data, lab reports, analysis code, and scorecard methodology will be made publicly available via Zenodo and ResearchHub, with DOIs and curated archival metadata.

2. Introduction

Theoretical Background and Key Literature:

Access to clean, safe drinking water is a foundational human right, yet inconsistencies in testing, reporting, and regulation persist in the U.S.¹ ². Several studies have revealed that government-reported water safety metrics may underrepresent the true level of health risk³ ⁴. The EPA’s legal limits for contaminants often lag behind scientific consensus on toxicity thresholds⁵ ⁶.

PFAS—"forever chemicals"—are a group of thousands of synthetic compounds used in industrial and consumer products for water, grease, and stain resistance. These chemicals are highly persistent in the environment and human body and have been linked to cancer, thyroid dysfunction, and reproductive harm⁷ ⁸. Despite this, federal regulations cover only a small subset of PFAS compounds⁹.

Similarly, microbial contamination and trace heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and chromium-6 continue to appear in tap water supplies across the U.S.¹⁰–¹². University campuses, with dense populations and aging infrastructure, may be especially vulnerable¹³ ¹⁴.

This study aims to create a rigorous, transparent, and reproducible index of tap water safety in high-population urban and academic settings. Health-based scoring is emphasized due to the gap between legal compliance and updated scientific risk thresholds.

Research Questions:

What levels of PFAS, fluoride, heavy metals, and microbial contaminants are present in tap water across selected sites?
How do these levels compare with EPA standards and recent public health guidance?
What overall safety score would each location receive using a health-based scorecard?

Hypotheses:

H1: A majority of sites will show at least one contaminant exceeding health-based thresholds (even if legally compliant).
H2: The average score on the project’s scorecard will fall below the highest tier (“Excellent”) at most sites.

Impact Statement: Regardless of findings, this project will contribute to transparency, public engagement, and environmental justice. It will offer replicable methodology for independent water auditing and strengthen civic data literacy.

3. Methods

Participants/Sample:

Target Sites: 15 largest U.S. cities and 10 largest university campuses by population, stratified across regions.
Sample Size: Duplicate samples from each of 25 sites = 50 total samples.
Inclusion Criteria: Must be main municipal tap water source accessible to residents.
Exclusion Criteria: Sites with non-municipal water systems (e.g., private wells), locations undergoing active remediation or known boil notices during sampling period.
Recruitment Strategy: A local contact at each site will be compensated $100 to collect and return each sample following protocol.

Materials and Procedures:

Test Kits: SimpleLab’s certified $300 kits, covering PFAS (EPA 533), metals (ICP-MS), microbial pathogens (E. coli/coliforms), and fluoride.
Collection Protocol: Standardized PTFE bottles and pre-paid overnight shipping. Duplicate samples collected at each site by different individuals on the same day.
Pre-Analysis Workflow: Chain-of-custody logs, temperature monitoring, and sample integrity checks conducted by the lab.

Planned Analyses:

Scorecard Development: Each sample will be evaluated on a 100-point scale:

90–100 = Excellent
70–88 = Adequate
50–69 = Concerning
<50 = Unsafe

Contaminant-specific penalties will be assigned based on exceedance of EPA MCLs and precautionary thresholds (e.g., EWG).

Example penalty matrix (supplemental):

PFAS >10 ppt = −15 pts
Lead >1 ppb = −10 pts
Microbial detection = −30 pts
Fluoride >2 ppm = −8 pts

Statistical Pipeline:

Descriptive statistics per contaminant by site
EPA compliance vs. health-risk exceedance comparison
Conditional penalty scoring: IF contaminant exceeds threshold THEN apply deduction
Between-group score comparisons via ANOVA (e.g., cities vs. campuses, East vs. West)

Software: R (v4.3.1) and Python (v3.10) with tidyverse, ggplot2, seaborn, pandas, and scipy.stats.

Power Analysis: One-way ANOVA for large effect size (f = 0.40) at α = 0.05 and 80% power requires 28 observations. Sample size (N = 50) is sufficient.

Ethics and Data Management:

No human subjects involved; IRB exemption will be filed. Data anonymized, encrypted, and made open-access via Zenodo and ResearchHub with DOIs and archival metadata.

4. Pilot Data

The Environmental Working Group (2021) found that over 85% of tested U.S. city tap water samples contained detectable PFAS, and 45% exceeded health-based levels¹⁵. A 2022 NRDC study found excessive nitrate and microbial violations in over 20,000 community water systems¹⁶. Unlike these prior studies, our methodology emphasizes duplication, open-source scoring, and reproducible workflows.

5. Budget

				CategoryUnit CostQuantityTotal CostSource & Notes
Lab Test Kits	$300	50	$15,000	SimpleLab Advanced City Water Test (Tap Score)
Research Assistant (0.5 FTE)	—	—	$15,000	Based on $60,000/year salary at 50% FTE
Principal Investigator (0.25 FTE)	—	—	$10,500	Based on $85,000/year salary at 25% FTE
Site Collector Compensation	$100	50	$5,000	Flat rate honorarium for each of 25 locations (2 samples/site)
Software/Data Analytics Licenses	—	—	$2,500	Data tools, Zenodo/ResearchHub curation, and scorecard engine
TOTAL			$48,000	$2,000 contingency held in RA time or kit replacement

6. References

NRDC. Threats on Tap. 2022.
EWG. Tap Water Database. https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/
Hu XC, et al. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2016;3(10):344–350.
Cordner A, et al. Environmental Health. 2019;18(1):49.
Andrews DQ, et al. Water Research. 2020;183:115996.
Post GB, et al. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(20):11588–11600.
Grandjean P, et al. Environ Health. 2020;19(1):1–8.
Sunderland EM, et al. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2019;29(2):131–147.
USEPA. PFAS Strategic Roadmap. 2021.
Roy S, et al. Flint Water Crisis: Science and Politics. MIT Press, 2020.
Pieper KJ, et al. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(4):2052–2062.
Schullehner J, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4036.
Bowers A, et al. J Environ Health. 2017;79(10):8–15.
Van Abel N, et al. AWWA Water Science. 2021;3(2):e1225.
EWG. PFAS in Tap Water. 2021. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2021/
NRDC. What’s in Your Water? 2022. https://www.nrdc.org/resources/whats-your-water
Ocampo J, et al. J Public Health Policy. 2022;43(3):345–362.
McCormick L, et al. Environmental Sociology. 2020;6(4):285–297.

What’s In Your Water? An Independent Assessment of Water Quality in Major U.S. Cities and University Campuses

What’s In Your Water? An Independent Assessment of Water Quality in Major U.S. Cities and University Campuses

Funding Progress

Related Funding

Request for Proposals - Comprehensive Analysis of Water Quality in Urban U.S.

Nonprofit Recipient

Topics

DOI