Comprehensive Analysis of Tap Water Quality in Households and Offices in Newark, New Jersey, United States

1. Overview

Newark remains the largest and one of the most culturally diverse metropolitan cities in New Jersey. Despite population declines in recent decades, it is still widely recognized as a key economic hub for the greater New York City region and surrounding communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau [1], approximately 12.8% of Newark residents live below the poverty line, reflecting persistent socioeconomic challenges. A range of historical and structural factors have contributed to the city’s decline, including the Great Recession of 2007–2009 [2], shifts in transportation and industry, and the 1967 civil uprising [3]. At the center of this multifaceted urban decline is the degradation of the city’s tap water infrastructure, which has received considerable attention in both public discourse and scientific research [4–6].

2. Introduction

Although municipal water utilities in Newark, NJ, regularly publish compliance data as required by federal and state regulations, residents continue to express concerns about contaminants that may fall outside the scope of routine testing. Emerging substances such as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), microplastics, pharmaceutical residues, and disinfection byproducts are not always captured in standard water quality reports or are reported in averages that may obscure localized spikes. This project aims to conduct a fresh, independent assessment of tap water quality in Newark, targeting both households and office buildings. I will test for both regulated and unregulated substances, providing a complementary data set to existing reports and helping to identify potential blind spots that could pose risks to public health.

Having reliable access to clean drinking water is a basic public health need. Even though water suppliers conduct routine testing, I hypothesize that current public water quality reports may omit or underrepresent specific contaminants such as microplastics, PFAS, or certain biological markers — that could have chronic health impacts. By analyzing samples independently, I aim to uncover inconsistencies and offer a more health-centered assessment.

3. Methods

• Sampling Period: 3 months

• Sampling Frequency: One-time collection per site, with repeat sampling at 5 randomly selected locations for quality control.

• Sample Collection

o Collected using certified sterile containers by trained personnel

o Chain-of-custody procedures followed to ensure sample integrity

o All samples will be tested within 24–48 hours of collection.

• Parameters Measured

o Chemical: PFAS, fluoride, nitrates/nitrites, chlorine byproducts, heavy metals (lead, arsenic, chromium, etc.)

o Physical: Turbidity, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), temperature

o Biological: Coliform bacteria, E. coli

o Emerging Contaminants: Microplastics, pharmaceutical residues.

• Laboratory Analysis

o Testing will be conducted via partnerships with accredited third-party labs (e.g., EMSL, Eurofins, SGS) using EPA-approved methods where applicable (e.g., EPA 537.1 for PFAS, EPA Method 1603 for E. coli).

Statistical Analysis Plan

• Descriptive Statistics: Summarize the distribution of each contaminant across all sites (mean, median, range)

• Comparative Analysis: Use t-tests or ANOVA to compare average contaminant levels between neighborhoods, households vs. offices

• Correlation: Assess relationships between contaminant levels and external factors (e.g., age of plumbing, neighborhood income level)

• Outlier Detection: Identify sites with concentrations significantly above the norm using z- scores or boxplot methods

• Score Analysis: Compare TWHRS across locations and look for clustering by region or building type

• All statistical work will be performed in R or Python using open-source packages to ensure transparence.

Participants/Sample

• Sample Selection

o Sites: 30 locations across Newark, NJ, including:

▪ 20 households (diverse by income level and neighborhood)

▪ 10 office buildings (public and private sector).

Ethics and Data Management

I will develop a simple Tap Water Health Risk Score (TWHRS) that reflects the presence and concentration of contaminants in relation to public health guidelines (EPA MCLs, WHO recommendations, and latest toxicological data). This score will:

• Use a 0–100 scale (higher = safer)

• Weight contaminants based on known health impacts

• Be user-friendly and publicly available per site (anonymized).

Outline analysis pipeline, preprocessing steps, statistical tests, and hypothesis-specific predictions. Include any contingent analysis decisions as IF-THEN statements.

Deliverables

• A public report summarizing findings, methodology, and limitations

• Interactive map showing anonymized site scores

• Recommendations for residents, landlords, and policymakers

• Open dataset (with identifiable data removed) for academic and community use.

Health-Based Scoring Model

I will develop a simple Tap Water Health Risk Score (TWHRS) that reflects the presence and concentration of contaminants in relation to public health guidelines (EPA MCLs, WHO recommendations, and latest toxicological data). This score will:

• Use a 0–100 scale (higher = safer)

• Weight contaminants based on known health impacts

• Be user-friendly and publicly available per site (anonymized).

4. Pilot Data (Optional)

This project will provide a necessary independent lens into the real-world quality of tap water in Newark. By comparing observed contaminant levels to regulatory and health-based thresholds, and presenting results in an accessible format, I aim to empower residents with actionable information while informing future water quality policy

5. Budget

• Category: Cost Estimate

o Laboratory Testing (30 sites × avg. $800/sample incl. shipping, QA) = $24,000.00

o Personnel (project lead, technician, statistician - stipends) = $12,000.00

o Data Analysis & Health Score Modeling = $4,000.00

o Equipment & Supplies (sampling kits, containers, PPE) = $3,000.00

o Travel (local sample collection team transport) = $2,000.00

o Public Report Design, Website, and Dissemination = $3,000.00

o Contingency (~4%) = $2,000.00

o Total = $50,000.00

References

1. U.S. Census Bureau (2023). American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ Metro Area http://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US35620-new-york-newark-jersey-city-ny-nj-metro-area/.

2. Neal M, and Daniel P. How Newark, New Jersey, Provides a Template for Targeting the Homeowner Assistance Fund. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

3. Farrell E. The 1967 Riots: When Outrage over Racial Injustice Boiled Over, History.com, October 6, 2023,https://www.history.com/news/1967-summer-riots-detroit-newarkkerner-commission.

4. Lytle DA, Schock MR, Formal C, Bennett-Stamper C, Harmon S, Nadagouda MN, Williams D, DeSantis MK, Tully J, and Pham M. Lead Particle Size Fractionation and Identification in Newark, New Jersey’s Drinking Water. Environ Sci Technol. 2020 Oct 22;54(21):13672– 13679. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c03797.

5. Dave DM, and Yang M. Lead in Drinking Water and Birth Outcomes: A Tale of Two Water Treatment Plants. Journal of Health Economics. Volume 84, July 2022, 102644.

6. Stratton SA, Ettinger AS, Doherty CL, and Buckley BT. The lead and copper rule: Limitations and lessons learned from Newark, New Jersey. WIREs Water. 2023 Jan-Feb;10(1):e1620. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1620. Epub 2022 Oct 11. PMID: 37032806; PMCID: PMC10077897.

Comprehensive Analysis of Tap Water Quality in Households and Offices in Newark, New Jersey, United States

Comprehensive Analysis of Tap Water Quality in Households and Offices in Newark, New Jersey, United States

Funding Progress

Peer Reviews

Related Funding

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

Nonprofit Recipient

Topics

DOI