Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•944 views
Summarizes the results of a community-based participatory research study about lead contamination in urban soil. Urban agriculture is becoming more widespread, but concerns remain about the safety of vegetables grown in urban soil. Lead contamination was found to vary significantly among different locations within a single yard.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (16)
Ähnlich wie Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities
Ähnlich wie Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities (20)
Mehr von Community and Regional Food Systems
Mehr von Community and Regional Food Systems (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities
- 1. Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities Children’s Environmental Health Sciences Core Center Translational Research Committee July 30, 2013
- 2. Pilot Project Team Members • Medical College of Wisconsin • Sixteenth Street Community Health Center • University of Wisconsin-Madison • Walnut Way Conservation Corporation • *Symbiont: Science, Engineering and Construction
- 3. Outline • Description of the Pre Pilot and Pilot Study – Background & Objectives – Specific Aims • Results • Discussion/Next Steps
- 4. Background • Public Health: – Lead poisoning remains a top environmental threat to children • Urban Agriculture is booming – Community-building tool – Land disposition strategy – Food security & nutrition
- 5. Objective • Test the feasibility of integrating principles of CBPR with environmental site assessment methods to explore the relationship between residential backyard gardening and lead exposure in children and families.
- 6. Pre-Pilot Urban Gardens and Soil Contaminants (Jan 2011-March 2011) • Developed gardening practices structured interview and checklist • Collected descriptive data to characterize project neighborhoods • Recruited first cohort of 11 gardeners • Collected qualitative and quantitative data from residents, including attitudes regarding soil and plant testing, BLL testing and DNR reporting requirements. • Developed soil/plant sampling plan
- 7. Pilot Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities Aug 2011- Present • Increased community engagement and resident participation in research • Conducted gardening practice interviews, soil and plant tissue testing • Communicated findings to community residents and other stakeholders • Identified future research directions
- 8. Methods Overview Recruitment – Randomly selected properties pre-screened for presence of a garden using MCAMLIS and ArcGIS software – In person canvassing of prescreened properties to – confirm backyard gardening activities – confirm children/grandchildren < 6 years old Primary Data – Structured Interviews and Checklist – Residential Soil and Produce – Commercial Soil and Produce – Community feedback sessions
- 9. Methods: Residential Soil Sampling • Three Locations – Garden – Lawn – Drip Line • Two Depths – Surface Layer (top 3.5”) – Deeper Layer (3.5” to 6”) • X-Ray Florescence (XRF) & Lab Analysis
- 10. Methods: How did we operationalize CBPR? Iterative Process • Iterative process that sought input and feedback from residents through: • Expansion of research team to include 2 more neighborhood residents • Focus groups • Community feedback sessions • Topics Covered: • Informed consent process • Data collection methods – XRF vs. laboratory methods • Aggregate interview, soil and plant results • Next steps/Action Research agenda
- 11. Results: Interviews (Combined pre-pilot and pilot) Neighborhood 1 (n=9) • More than half (56%) of participants were in 25-44 age groups • Children participated in gardening activities – Picking (78%) – Planting (78%) – Watering (78%) – Preparing (44%) – Weeding (44%) – Tilling (22%) Neighborhood 2 (n=11) • The majority (64%) of participants were in 55+ age groups • Children participated in gardening activities: – Picking (100%) – Planting (82%) – Watering (73%) – Weeding (73%) – Preparing (55%) – Tilling (18%)
- 12. Results: Soil Testing XRF measurements compared to laboratory methods XRF performed well – about 95% accurate compared to the more expensive and time consuming laboratory methods
- 13. Results: Residential Soil Contamination Participant Report
- 14. Results: Summary of Lead in Soil for All Participants Site Minimum Maximum Average Parts per million (ppm) lead (Pb) Garden 8 2,370 396 Drip Line 16 3,234 691 Lawn 8 1,107 272 Site Minimum Maximum Average Parts per million (ppm) lead (Pb) Garden 29 1,982 439 Drip Line 16 2,779 602 Lawn 7 1,049 235 Surface 0 to 3.5 inches 3.5 to 6 inches
- 15. Results: Vegetables Vegetable # Lead (Pb) - ppm Onions 10 0.22 Peppers 10 0.14 Tomatoes 10 0.34 Zucchini 8 0.48 Store- or Market-Bought Produce Residential Produce # Lead (Pb) - ppm Leafy Vegetables 19 2.7 Root Vegetables 4 1.5 Tomatoes and Peppers 23 0.7
- 16. Results: Commercial Soils Very Low Lead • Similar to natural “background” levels in non-contaminated soils Soil Lead Content (ppm) WalMart Miracle Gro Organic Choice 6 Home Depot EarthGrow Topsoil 11 Home Depot Scotts Topsoil 7 Growing Power 6
- 17. Interpretation of Results • <400 ppm: can be used for gardening • 400 to 1200 ppm: use precautions when gardening • >1200 ppm: do not garden, cover with grass 0 400 800 1200 1600 Parts per million (ppm) of lead (Pb) in soil * Thresholds as specified by US Environmental Protection Agency * * Results: Interpretation for Residents
- 18. Risk Reduction Strategies >1200 ppm Lead in Soil Eliminate exposure to bare soil • Remove contaminated soil; Cover with walking stones or bark chips; Plant grass and fertilize to ensure dense cover 400 to 1200 ppm Range Minimize exposure to soil • Wash vegetables to remove soil; Use door mats to keep soil out of home; Wash hands after gardening Reduce the bioavailability of lead in the soil • Apply phosphorus fertilizer to the garden; Add compost or topsoil to dilute contaminated soil < 400 ppm Range The EPA requires no action, but following the practices previously discussed is a good idea, especially as levels approach 400 ppm Results: Interpretation for Residents
- 19. Results: How did we operationalize CBPR? Capacity Building • Two community residents joined the research team – 1 hired as a part-time community research associate – 1 chose a volunteer role • Received training and participated in: – revising data collection tools – canvassing, recruitment and retention – conducting structured interviews and focus groups (as either interviewer or note taker) – lead sampling technician training (1 CBO staff/resident,1 CBO staff/nonresident)
- 20. Results: How did we operationalize CBPR? Dissemination • Community Campus Partnerships for Health Annual Conference (2012) • MPTV 4th Street Forum (2012) • Lindsay Heights Research Council (2012) • MCW Clinical Translational Science Institute Research in Progress Seminar (2011) • MCW Public and Community Health Doctoral Seminar (2012) • UWM Zilber School of Public Health, Social and Environmental Justice PhD Course Lecture (2013) • WDNR Brownfield Study Group (2013) • CEHSCC External Advisors Meeting (2013) • Progress in Community Health Partnerships (manuscript accepted, July 2013)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Presentation of a community-based research project on potential risk of lead in urban gardens under the leadership of Dr. Sheri Johnson, Assistant Professor, Center for the Advancement of Underserved Children, Medical College of Wisconsin, with numerous collaborators.
- * Symbiont was an integral member of the team during pre-pilot and early pilot phase of research, contributing to the development of the hypotheses and contributing technical expertise and knowledge regarding regulatory requirements.
- In recognition of the toxic effects of lead on every organ system in the body, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) now emphasizes primary prevention, focused on eliminating sources of lead in the environment, including soil, before exposure occurs. Urban agriculture is increasingly used as a means to transform and empower communities that have been historically marginalized due to race, social class and gender.
- CBPR is community-based participatory research, in which stakeholders have direct involvement in the development of research questions and in conducting the research and analysis. In this case, people with back yard gardens where children may be exposed to lead were the stakeholders.
- The pre-pilot and pilot projects took place in two neighborhoods in Milwaukee. Large proportions of residents in the neighborhoods have low income and self-identify as African American or Latino. Both neighborhoods were in parts of the city where older housing and proximity to transportation corridors portended elevated levels of lead in soils.
- Members of the communities were recruited to be part of the research team.
- Selected 3 noncontiguous census tracts from each geographically defined neighborhoodRandomly selected 10 blocks per census tractEach residential property (4 units or less) in those randomly selected tracts was examined using Milwaukee County Aerial Mapping List Information Service (MCAMLIS) using standardized criteria for rating presence of a potential gardenThose identified as “yes” or “maybe” were sent an introductory letter, and in person canvassing was conducted up to two times. If residents were available, or responded to the letter proactively, screening for eligibility in the study was completed in person.
- Two depths:Surface: exposure through dust and hand-to-mouthDeep: rooting depth of common garden vegetablesTwo methods:Lab analysis required for regulatory purposesXRF as rapid assay; wanted to compare accuracy and field operation characteristics
- We aimed to engage residents in as much of the research process as feasible, including identification research questions/concerns, development of the research strategy, data collection, analysis and dissemination of results.
- Residents participated in structured interviews conducted either in their home or at the CBO. Interviews were conducted by CBO staff. Participants also completed a checklist which identifies which vegetables currently a) grown in backyard b) purchased at retail outlets and c) consumed by children under 6 years old. The participants identified common retail outlets utilized for purchase of vegetables and soil for gardening.The majority of participants reported that children are actively involved in backyard gardening.
- Comparison of results using XRF methods and laboratory method indicated comparable accuracy. While XRF is not an accepted method for regulatory (environmental cleanup) purposes, it is a rapid, inexpensive, and accurate way to screen soil for high lead levels.
- Soil Pb reports:- based on lab analysis using EPA protocol (though corroborated by XRF)EPA guidelines are oriented to exposure hazard, not developed specifically for risk in gardens, so used as broad guidelines onlyVegetable Pb contentvegetables thoroughly washed; testing tissue only, not surface contaminationno regulatory standard for Pb in veges; only exists for canned fruit juice and candy (FDA – 0.5 ug/serving) , water (USEPA - 15 ug/L), weak or no correlation between soil and vegetable contaminationsome correlation between plant part (root > leave/shoot > fruit) and Pb level
- Results confirmed hypotheses:Highest at dripline, lower in yard and gardenNo significant depth effectResults for garden influenced by one very high outlier; without this, averages would be similar to lawn
- Pb levels in vegetables hard to interpret. Not at levels that imply immediate concern, though noteworthy that home garden vegetables generally higher than store bought.Both are within the range but above mean of reported values in a meta-analysis by European Food Safety Authority, March 2013 (appears to be the only comprehensive review):Upper bound mean, all vegetables: .09 mg/kg; starchy roots: .03 mg/kg; fruits: .03 mg/kgEFSA Journal 2012;10(7):2831More specifically, the following food groups were identified as themajor contributors to lead exposure: cereal products, followed by potatoes, cereal grains (except rice),cereal-based mixed dishes and leafy vegetables and tap water. Considerable variation between andwithin countries in the contribution of different food categories/groups exists.For children aged 1-3 years mean lead dietary exposure estimatesrange from 1.10 to 3.10 μg/kg b.w. per day based on lower bound and upper bound assumptions,respectively; for high consumers, lead exposure estimates range from 1.71 to 5.51 μg/kg b.w. per day.For children aged 4-7 years mean lead dietary exposure estimates range from 0.80 to 2.61 μg/kg b.w.per day based on lower bound and upper bound assumptions, respectively; for high consumers, leadexposure estimates range from 1.30 to 4.83 μg/kg b.w. per day.Report describes relative contribution of each broad food category to overall lower bound mean leadexposure in each country and the median of the country mean for the lower bound (M-LB) as well asupper bound (M-UB) exposure.SCIENTIFIC OPINIONScientific Opinion on Lead in Food1EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM)2, 3European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, ItalyThis Scientific Opinion, published on 22 March 2013, replaces the earlier version published on20 April 2010.
- Commercial soils were obtained at retail outlets identified for participants via a checklist completed during the interview.
- Graphic depiction for interpretation of risk from lead in soils. It is important to note that these figures correspond to total lead in soil, while the biological availability of lead may vary considerably depending on factors such as soil pH, organic matter, and phosphorus levels.