A REVIEW OF LEAD COPPER AND NICKEL IN EUROPEAN DRINKING WATER

1. A REVIEW OF LEAD COPPER AND NICKEL IN EUROPEAN DRINKING WATER Nina Skubala and Colin Hayes - Swansea University Industrial Collaborators: Monika Schönerklee-Grasserand Eddo J. Hoekstra

2. Aims and Objectives • Determine the extent of lead, copper and nickel monitoring at the tap throughout Europe • Understand the methods used to determine lead, copper and nickel at the tap • Determine the level of compliance to DWD standards • Understand the representiveness of the results

3. Method • COST 637 Short Term Scientific Mission (STSM) • KWR (NL) - Nelly Slaats • IWW (GER) – Angelika Becker and Achim Ruebel • AGH (POL) – Stanislaw Witzak and Adam Postawa • ARCS (AUS) - Monika Schönerklee-Grasser and Martin Jung • ISS (ITY) – Enrico Vescetti • EC DG Joint Research Centre - Eddo Hoekstra • Questionnaires sent to COST Action 637 members • Literature Review (Web of Science, Science Direct, Published Drinking Water Quality Reports)

4. Sampling methods used in Europe

5. Percentage range of RDT, FF and FD samples exceeding lead DWD standards

6. Percentage range of RDT, FF and FD samples exceeding copper DWD standards

7. Percentage range of RDT, FF and FD samples exceeding nickel DWD standards

8. Representiveness of data Difficult to aggregate the data due to the varied: • Scope of data • Individual wells vs country wide studies • Public buildings vs domestic buildings • Demographics • Plumbing materials • Number of samples • Sampling methods used • Inconsistent sampling protocol • Sample volume (15ml – 1000 ml)

9. Conclusions • Lead, copper and nickel monitoring varies between and within countries. • Lead appears to be problematic at the local scale throughout Europe. • Copper does not appear to be problematic throughout most of Europe. • Nickel appears to be problematic throughout Europe, but not as severe as lead and is not confined to particular localities.

10. Thank you for your attention