View
947
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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.
Citation preview
Growing Healthy Soil for Healthy Communities
Children’s Environmental Health Sciences Core Center
Translational Research Committee
July 30, 2013
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
Outline
• Description of the Pre Pilot and Pilot Study
– Background & Objectives
– Specific Aims
• Results
• Discussion/Next Steps
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
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.
Pre-PilotUrban 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
PilotGrowing 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
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
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
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
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%)
Results: Soil TestingXRF measurements compared to
laboratory methods
XRF performed well – about 95% accurate compared to the more expensive and time consuming laboratory methods
Results: Residential Soil Contamination Participant Report
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
Results: Vegetables
Vegetable # Lead (Pb) - ppmOnions 10 0.22Peppers 10 0.14Tomatoes 10 0.34Zucchini 8 0.48
Store- or Market-Bought Produce
Residential Produce
# Lead (Pb) - ppmLeafy Vegetables 19 2.7Root Vegetables 4 1.5Tomatoes and Peppers 23 0.7
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
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
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
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)
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)