![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Women in the child-bearing age of 15 to 44 years and, in particular, pregnant and lactating women in this age cohort are considered a sensitive subpopulation when assessing risk from ingestion of water because water borne contaminants may pose a risk not only to the mother but to the fetus or infant. This article presents estimates of daily average per capita water ingestion for women of child-bearing age and in three subgroups: pregnant, lactating, and non-pregnant/non-lactating women. Estimates of means and upper percentiles of subgroup ingestion distributions were generated using participant responses and survey weights from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 1994–96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). The ingestion estimates are empirical and not based on an assumed parametric distribution of daily average amount of water ingestion. Water occurring naturally in foods or added by manufacturers to commercial products is not included in the estimates presented. These estimates of water ingestion by women of child-bearing age are compared to those attributed to CitationErshow and Cantor (1989) by CitationBurmaster (1998). These estimates, based on data collected in 1978, were used by Burmaster to characterize the distribution of daily average per capita ingestion as lognormal. The lognormal estimates of total water ingestion are generally greater than the total water ingestion estimates based on the CSFII data. Possible explanations for the differences are discussed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Ms. Helen L. Jacobs and Dr. Julie Du for their significant contributions in the use of the CSFII data to develop previous reports on the ingestion of water. Their efforts and guidance prior to retirement greatly supported our work. The authors also express their appreciation to the technical support provided by Ms. Annetta Cook, USDA; Ms. Carol Lang, USEPA; Ms. Dung Bich Phan, Ms. Jan Biddlup-Krentar, SAIC; as well as Dr. Joyce Donohue and Dr. Hend Galal-Gorchev and Ms. Jacqueline Moya, USEPA, for their comments during preparation of the article.
Notes
*: The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States, 1994–96.”
*: The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States, 1994–96.”
*: The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States, 1994–96.”
*: The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States, 1994–96.”
b Women aged 15 to 49 years;
c Women aged 15 to 44 years.
* The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States.”
b Women aged 15 to 49 years;
c Women aged 15 to 44 years.
* The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States.”
b Women aged 15 to 49 years;
c Women aged 15 to 44 years.
b Women aged 15 to 49 years;
c Women aged 15 to 44 years.
* The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requirements as described in the “Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States.”
b Women aged 15 to 49 years;
c Women aged 15 to 44 years.
b Women aged 15 to 49 years;
c Women aged 15 to 44 years.
* Present address: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD, USA The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect USEPA policy.