Contaminants of Emerging Concern
Special Projects
Why do we work on special projects?
MDH staff may decide to start a special project when scientific or other information is needed to address a specific question or issue. About half of program funds will be used for special projects, including contracts and grants. Special projects will be conducted as needed to support the goals of the program.
So far, the CEC program has initiated four special projects. A description and update of each project can be found below:
- Baseline Needs Assessment/Focus Groups (contracted research)
- Relative Source Contribution (contracted research)
- Alternative Risk Assessment Methodology (contracted research)Analytical Methodology Development (MDH Public Health Lab)
Baseline Needs Assessment/Focus Groups
What is this project and why did we do it?
Part of our mission is to protect public health by communicating potential health risks from contaminants. One way we do this is by preparing outreach and education materials. In order to find out what types of information 
people need, MDH worked with a contractor to conduct 12 focus groups around Minnesota. Participants lived in communities that were serviced by both public water supplies and private wells. Each focus group was asked the same set of questions about drinking water in Minnesota. This project sought to find out:
- What Minnesotans already know about contaminants in drinking water;
- How Minnesotans become aware of drinking water concerns;
- Who Minnesotans trust for information when they are concerned about their drinking water; and
- How we can improve our communication materials.
What were some key outcomes?
Participants of the focus groups indicated that local units of government are the entities they were most likely to contact when concerns about their drinking water emerged. As such, MDH will expand outreach and coordination efforts with these entities in order to reach a broader audience.
How will
MDH use this information?
MDH will use the results of this study to improve communications about contaminants and to target various audiences more effectively.
Relative Source Contribution
What is this project and why are we doing it?
When MDH develops a drinking water guidance value for a chemical, we must consider that water is not the only source of exposure. Chemicals can get into your body from several different sources:
- Drinking water;
- Food and medications;
- Products that are applied to the skin, such as sunscreen and lotion; and
- The air you breathe, which may include aerosols from showering or gases released from products in the home.
It can be difficult to estimate how much of a chemical gets into your body from each of these sources. Our standard practice for most cases is to assume that about 20 percent of your total exposure to a chemical is from drinking water, and 80 percent is from sources other than drinking water. 
This estimate was originally developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for industrial chemicals detected in drinking water. MDH does not know if this is the best approach for other kinds of chemicals, especially those that are used in consumer products or pharmaceuticals. To answer this question, MDH hired a contractor to research how computer models could be used to estimate exposure from many different sources. This project sought to:
- Review and evaluate existing exposure models;
- Determine the skill set required to use the models; and
- Evaluate how useful these models are in estimating exposure to CECs in Minnesota (including exposures that can occur in the home).
What are some key outcomes?
In the first phase of the project, the contractor evaluated 28 different computer models and reported on their capabilities, ease of use, and data requirements. Ten “preferred” models were identified. The contractor also listed which models were the best choices for various types of exposures. A request for proposals (RFP) for the second phase of this project were accepted through May 8, 2012.
How will MDH use this information?
MDH may use this information to develop new methods of estimating exposure to chemicals. This would help MDH determine whether the estimate of 20 percent for drinking water is appropriate for some contaminants.
Alternative Risk Assessment Methodology
What is this project and why are we doing it?
MDH uses an established risk assessment methodology to estimate health risks from chemicals. However, sometimes there is not enough information about a chemical to use this methodology. Therefore, MDH hired a contractor to research alternative risk assessment methods in order to estimate health risks when limited information is available. This project will:
- Identify, describe, critique, and test alternative risk assessment methods.
- Develop recommendations on evaluating life-stage sensitivity, susceptible populations, uncertainties and gaps in available data, and health risks from chemical mixtures.
- Develop a process to provide health guidance to the public and regulators for chemicals with limited data.
- Advance scientific and policy discussions regarding alternative risk assessment methods for chemicals with limited data.
- Expand the number of available risk assessment methods for evaluating potential human health risks from contaminants in drinking water.
- Educate staff so that they can appropriately select and use a variety of alternative risk assessment methods for a wide range of chemicals.
What are some key outcomes?
This project is in progress.
How will MDH use this information?
Alternative methods may be used to develop health guidance for chemicals with limited information if determined to be appropriate.
Analytical Methodology Development
What is this project and why did we do it?
MDH recently lowered the health based guidance for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) from 40 parts per billion (ppb) to 0.003 ppb. Analytical methods at the MDH Public Health Laboratory (PHL) for measuring 1,2,3-TCP in water were not able to detect 1,2,3-TCP at this low level. Past monitoring for 1,2,3-TCP used detection limits that were higher than 0.003 ppb, typically around 4 ppb. Therefore, it was unclear if there were concentrations of 1,2,3-TCP in water in Minnesota between 4 ppb and 0.003 ppb.
CEC program staff coordinated with the PHL to find an analytical method that could measure 1,2,3-TCP at or below 0.003 ppb. It turned out to be more efficient and cost-effective to locate a certified outside laboratory that could meet MDH’s requirements. Arrangements were made to send samples through the PHL to the outside laboratory. CEC program staff coordinated with staff from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and other MDH programs to choose sampling locations. Groundwater samples were collected from four agricultural monitoring wells, one closed landfill monitoring well, and eight non-community public wells. These samples were analyzed by a laboratory in California that could measure 1,2,3-TCP at 0.0007 ppb, well below the MDH guidance value.
What were some key outcomes?
1,2,3-TCP was not found at levels above 0.0007 ppb in any of the samples.
How will MDH use this information?
Because of the limited number of samples collected, the question still remains as to whether 1,2,3-TCP is in Minnesota groundwater at levels of concern. MDH anticipates more sampling at other locations and will continue to coordinate with staff from MDA, MPCA, and the PHL as applicable.
If you would like to be notified when future contract opportunities are available, subscribe to our GovDelivery email subscription service or contact us.
Go to > top
Spotlight
Subscribe to receive notification when reviews are initiated for water contaminants, and other announcements.