Content uploaded by Priscilla Robinson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Priscilla Robinson
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality: A cause for
concern?
Jean Spinks, Suzanne Phillips, Priscilla Robinson and Paul Van Buynder
ABSTRACT
Jean Spinks
Suzanne Phillips
Environmental Health Unit, Department of Human
Services,
17/120 Spencer Street,
Melbourne, VIC 3000,
Australia
Priscilla Robinson
School of Health Sciences,
LaTrobe University,
Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia
Paul Van Buynder (corresponding author)
School of Population Health, University of Western
Australia,
227 Stubbs Terrace, Shenton Park,
WA 6008, Australia
Ph: 08 93884971
Fax: 08 93884975
E-mail: paul.vanbuynder@health.wa.gov.au
In early 2003, after a prolonged drought period, extensive bushfires occurred in the east of
Victoria affecting 1.5 million hectares of land. At the time, smoke and ash from bushfires, settling
on roofs, contained pollutants that could potentially contaminate rainwater collected and stored
in tanks for domestic use. The major concerns include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
from incomplete combustion of organic matter and arsenic from burnt copper chrome arsenate
(CCA) treated wood. An increase in microbial contamination through altered nutrient levels was
also hypothesised. A pilot study of 49 rainwater tank owners was undertaken in north-east
Victoria. A rainwater tank sample was taken and analysed for a variety of parameters including
organic compounds, microbiological indicators, metals, nutrients and physico-chemical
parameters. A survey was administered concurrently. A number of results were outside the
Australian Drinking Water Guideline (ADWG) values for metals and microbiological indicator
organisms, but not for any tested organic compounds. PAHs and arsenic are unlikely to be
elevated in rainwater tanks as a result of bushfires, but cadmium may be of concern.
Key words
|
arsenic, Australia, bushfires, cadmium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
rainwater tanks
INTRODUCTION
During the first two months of 2003, the regions of north-
east Victoria and East Gippsland were subject to bushfires
likened in severity to the ‘Black Friday’ fires of 1939 (CRC
Catchment Hydrology, www.catchment.crc.org.au/bush-
fire/background_preamble.html, 2003). Over 1.5 million
hectares were fire-affected and at least 41 houses and 200
other buildings were lost (DSE 2003). The fires coincided
with one of the longest droughts on record.
During the fires, concerns were raised about the
possible effect of smoke and ash contaminants on the
quality of private drinking water supplies, particularly
contaminants which settle on roofs and then are washed
into storage tanks after rains or hosing of roofs to put out
burning embers. Of particular concern was the possibility of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from incomplete
combustion of organic matter and arsenic from burnt
copper chrome arsenate (CCA) treated wood.
PAHs are a group of more than 100 compounds,
including benz(a)anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene which
are classified as probable human carcinogens by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC
1973a,b). PAHs can be formed during the incomplete
burning of materials such as wood, garbage, coal and gas
and would be expected as a result of bushfires. They are also
present in petroleum and coal based products, including
roofing tar. PAHs can exist as vapours or attached to small
solid particles such as dust, and can travel significant
distances before settling on roofs and being washed into
tanks after rainfall. Most PAHs are not readily soluble in
water and break down over a period of weeks to months
(ATSDR 1995).
Wood treated with CCA has been used in fence posts,
furniture and other structures such as outdoor huts. When
CCA treated wood is burnt, arsenic can be found in the
doi: 10.2166/wh.2005.059
21 Q IWA Publishing 2006 Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
resultant ash, much of which is in the water-soluble form
(Dobbs & Grant 1976). This ash again may settle on roofs
used as catchments for rainwater stored in tanks. Over time,
exposure to arsenic by ingestion in both its organic and
inorganic forms can result in a wide range of deleterious
systemic health effects, including cancer (ATSDR 2000).
In addition to the above concerns, it was thought that
an increase in burnt organic material being washed into
tank water might lead to increased levels of microbial
growth.
To review the extent of the bushfire related water
quality issues, a pilot study was undertaken by the Public
Health Division, Department of Human Services, Victoria.
The aim of the study was to investigate whether contami-
nants from the bushfires had affected the quality of
rainwater collected from roofs and stored in tanks for
domestic use.
METHODS
Recruitment
Rural areas of north-east Victoria were selected as the study
region based on fire severity data and an expected reliance
on rainwater for a potable supply (Heyworth et al. 1998).
Local maps were used to select properties (CFA 1998).
Property numbers in the areas of interest were randomly
selected and telephone numbers for these properties were
acquired from local telephone directories. A telephone
‘recruitment interview’ was used to identify willing and
eligible participants from the prepared lists. Eligibility
criteria included the presence of an intact, undamaged,
above ground water tank, and use of the water from this
tank for drinking or food preparation. A total of 49
participants were recruited.
Survey
A survey was administered by a public health officer when
the water tank was sampled. Information was collected on
confounders such as tank construction materials and
maintenance practices as well as estimates of the severity
of smoke and ash contamination locally during the
bushfires.
Rainwater tank testing
Water samples were collected and preserved in accordance
with Standard Methods (1995). One complete sample set
was taken from the household tap used to source drinking
water. In the absence of a household tap connected to the
water tank, the sample was taken directly from the tap on
the tank where water was normally sourced. Five litres of
water was discarded before the sample was collected. The
parameters tested are shown in Table 1.
The water sample test results were communicated to
each participant individually by mail, and a help line was
established to provide further information if required by the
participant regarding management of their private drinking
water supply.
Table 1
|
Parameters tested in water samples
Category Indicator
Microbiological E. coli, coliforms, faecal streptococci
Organic compounds PAHs, including benzo(a)pyrene; VOCs including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX); total organic carbon
Heavy metals Lead (Pb), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn)
Physico-chemical pH, colour (true and apparent), turbidity, total dissolved solids (tds), alkalinity
Nutrients Total nitrogen (N), NH
3
, nitrate, total phosphorus (P)
22 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
Data analysis
Data were analysed in Epi-Info software, Version 6.
1
After
simple descriptive analyses, key independent variables were
stratified into two or more levels. Microbiological quanti-
fications were grouped into three levels and other par-
ameters grouped above and below the Australian Drinking
Water Guideline (ADWG). Mantel-Haenszel chi-square
analyses at the 95% significance level were performed
when more than two samples returned parameter results
above the ADWG.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The primary characteristics of the tanks sampled are shown
in Table 2. Participants confirmed the presence of smoke;
48 participants reported the smoke on their property as
being very bad (could not see more than 1 km into the
distance) for an average of 7.1 days, and 45 participants
reported the smoke as being bad (could not see more than
3 km into the distance) for an average of 18.6 days. Only
two participants reported the smoke as being not bad.
Many participants were aware of the correct mainten-
ance procedure for collecting and storing rainwater, but
most did not adhere to these guidelines. None disinfected
the rainwater in their tanks, and only nine respondents used
some type of first flush or diversion system to divert
potentially contaminated water away from their collection
tanks.
The results of the rainwater tank samples are tabulated
against the Australian Drinking Water Guideline Standards
(ARMCANZ 1996) (ADWG) in Tables 3–6.
The physico-chemical results for the samples were
found to be compliant with the ADWG, with the exception
of pH. The range for pH was found to be 5.2–10.2 units. Of
the samples tested, 31 tanks (63.3%) fell inside the
recommended value of 6.5–8.5 units. The physico-chemical
results did not indicate any demonstrable risk. The ADWG
advise only extreme values, , 4or. 11, may adversely affect
health. In addition, values ,6.5 may be corrosive and . 8.5
may cause scale and taste problems. Values less than 8 may
Table 2
|
Characteristics of rainwater tanks
Total number of tanks
sampled 49
Roof material
p
Galvanised iron 26 (53%)
Colourbond 20 (41%)
Tiles 4 (8%)
Zincalume 3 (6%)
Age of roof Mean 21.2 years
Median 16 years
Range 3 mths –126 years
Tank material† Concrete 35 (71%)
Galvanised iron 7 (14%)
Plastic 6 (12%)
Fibreglass 3 (6%)
Gutter material‡ Colourbond 12 reports
Galvanised iron 9 reports
Zincalume 6 reports
Painted metal 2 reports
Aluminium 1 report
Age of tank‡ Mean 13.4 years
Median 14.5 years
Range 3 mths–30 years
Trees overhanging roof Yes 12 (25%)
No 37 (75%)
Solid fuel heater in home Yes 41 (84%)
No 8 (16%)
Disinfection agent used in
water; e.g. chlorine
No 100%
p
Four participants reported more than one material
†
Participants could report more than one material due to interconnected tanks made of
different materials
‡
Not fully reported
1
Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA, and World Health Organisation
(WHO), Geneva, Switzerland: EpiInfo 6, a word processing, database and statistics
program for public health, Version 6.04d, January 2001.
23 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
decrease the efficiency of chlorination; however none of the
respondents was disinfecting their tank.
The results of the heavy metal testing are summarised in
Table 4. Some cadmium, iron and zinc results were above
the ADWG. Additionally one arsenic result was at the upper
ADWG guideline level of 0.007 mg l
21
although below the
World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline for arsenic in
drinking water of 0.01 mg l
21
(WHO 2001). The next highest
Table 5
|
Characteristics of tanks with elevated cadmium levels
Cd mg l
21
(0.002)
p
Zn mg l
21
(3)
p
pH units
(6.5–8.5)
p
Tank material Tank age Roof material Roof age
Filter
on tank
Fuel burning
stove
First flush
system
Smoke
very bad Smoke bad
0.0067 7.4 6.7 Plastic 1 year Galvanised
iron
50 years No Yes No 7 days 14 days
0.0034 5.4 6.4 Fibreglass 25 years Galvanised
iron
50 years No No No 6 days 28 days
p
Australian Drinking Water Guideline
Table 3
|
Physico-chemical results
Parameter ADWG
p
Significance Number of tanks outside ADWG
p
Range
p
Colour (filt), Pt/Co units 15 HU Aesthetic 3 (6.1%) , 2–25HU
pH, units 6.5–8.5 Aesthetic 18 (36.7%) 5.2–10.2 units
Total dissolved solids, 1058C 500 mg l
21
Aesthetic 0 24–130 mg l
21
Turbidity, NTU 5 NTU Aesthetic 2 tanks had 5 NTU , 0.5– 5 NTU
HU, Hazen units; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; Pt/Co, platinum cobalt units
Table 4
|
Heavy metal results
Parameter ADWG
p
Significance Number of tanks outside ADWG
p
Range
p
Arsenic, as As (ICP-MS) 0.007 Health 0 , 0.001– 0.007
Cadmium, as Cd (ICP-MS) 0.002 Health 2 (4.1%) , 0.0002–0.0067
Chromium, as Cr (ICP-MS) 0.05 Health 0 , 0.001– 0.008
Copper, as Cu (ICP-MS) 2 Health 0 0.005–0.58
Iron, as Fe (ICP-MS) 0.3 Aesthetic 5 (10.2%) , 0.05–0.78
Lead, as Pb (ICP-MS) 0.01 Health 0 , 0.001– 0.006
Zinc, as Zn (ICP-MS) 3 Aesthetic 7(14.3%) 0.003–17
p
Results in mg l
21
24 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
arsenic value recorded was 0.003 mg l
21
, and the majority of
results (41 tanks, 83.7%) recorded values that fell below
detectable levels (, 0.001 mg l
21
). It is unclear if the arsenic
result that fell on the upper guideline value was due to air
contamination from the bushfires, or some other source.
The property in question was subject to significant air
pollution during the fires (10 days of visibility less than 1 km
into the distance, followed by 14 days of visibility less than
3 km into the distance), and the owners did hose down the
roof during the bushfires with water obtained from the
reticulated supply; however no obvious CCA treated
structures burnt in the near vicinity. As the ‘maximum
tolerable daily intake value for arsenic includes adequate
safety factors’ (ADWG 1996) this result is not considered to
pose any health risk. The overall arsenic levels suggest that
the contamination of collected rainwater by arsenic from
CCA treated wood during bushfires is not likely.
Two cadmium samples results were above the ADWG
health guideline of 0.002 mg l
21
(0.0067 mg l
21
,
0.0034 mg l
21
), and one value (0.0018 mg l
21
) was just
below. The next highest value recorded was 0.0005 mg l
21
and the majority of results (39 tanks, 80.0%) fell below
detectable levels (, 0.0002 mg l
21
).
Long-term exposure to cadmium can cause kidney
dysfunction and osteomalacia (ADWG 1996). Bushfires can
release some cadmium into the air (ATSDR 1999).
Cadmium is also found naturally in water, and elevated
levels may result from industrial or agricultural contami-
nation or from impurities in galvanised (zinc) fittings,
solders or brasses (ADWG 1996). Cadmium metal is used
as an anti-corrosive coating for steel.
The characteristics of the collection systems for the two
properties with elevated cadmium are shown in Table 5.
In both, the results for zinc were also above the ADWG, the
catchment roof was made of galvanised iron, and was over
50 years old. This may indicate that the corrosion of the roof
was the source of both the cadmium and zinc in the
samples. While contamination from bushfire smoke and ash
may have contributed to the elevated cadmium levels found
in the samples, the smoke exposure described at these two
properties was similar to overall averages. Further investi-
gation is warranted and repeat sampling is planned later in
the year.
The ADWG for iron, 0.3 mg l
21
, is a taste threshold and
an aesthetic guideline only. Five samples were found to
have levels of iron above this value, the highest of which
Table 6
|
Microbial testing results
Parameter ADWG
p
Significance Result
p
Percentage of tanks in range
Coliforms MPNColilert 0 Health 0 10.2
1–99 49.0
100–999 20.4
1000 þ 20.4
E. coli MPNColilert 0 Health 0 67.3
1–99 32.7
Faecal streptococci 0 Health 0 26.5
1–99 59.2
100–999 12.2
1000 þ 2.0
p
Results in organisms per 100 ml
25 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
was 0.78 mg l
21
. Iron occurs naturally in water, usually at
, 1mgl
21
(ADWG 1996) and the levels of iron recorded
were not considered to be a health risk. No relationship was
found in the study between iron levels greater than the
ADWG and galvanised iron tanks or roof materials.
The ADWG for zinc is 3 mg l
21
and is an aesthetic
guideline only. Seven samples were found to contain zinc
levels higher than this value, the highest of which was
7.4 mg l
21
. Elevated zinc levels may result from the
corrosion of galvanised iron roof or tank material, or
galvanised pipes and fittings, leading to taste concerns. A
significant association was found between having a galva-
nised iron tank and a zinc level above the ADWG (RR 3.33,
1.03–10.78, p ¼ 0.0002). Similarly, the association between
having a galvanised iron roof and an elevated zinc level was
almost significant (RR 3.67, 0.58–23.03, p ¼ 0.06). Con-
versely, concrete tanks were associated with having zinc
levels below the ADWG (RR 0.30, 0.14–0.63, p ¼ 0.02).
Although five samples returned iron levels above the
ADWG, and seven samples returned zinc levels above the
ADWG, the presence of both these metals has been
associated with roof and tank materials in previous studies
(Thomas & Greene 1993; Banister et al. 1997) and it is
thought unlikely that the elevated results are associated
with the bushfires.
The nutrient results were unremarkable. The ADWG for
nitrate is 50 mg l
21
which will protect bottle-fed infants
under 3 months from methaemoglobinaemia. None of the
sample results was outside this guideline value. Apart from
nitrogen and nitrate there are no specified ADWG levels for
nutrient levels in drinking water. Higher nutrient levels are
not a stand-alone health risk, and may promote the growth
of microbiological contamination but nutrient levels were
not elevated in these samples.
All the samples returned results for benzo(a)pyrene,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene that were below
the detectable level of 1 mgl
21
. Additionally, all total
polyaromatic hydrocarbons results were below the detect-
able level of 8 mgl
21
.
Concern had been expressed that organic compounds
such as PAHs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
would be found at higher than expected levels in rainwater
tank samples after the fires but this was not demonstrable in
this study. The possible reasons for this include that the
compounds were not found owing to the timing of the
testing in relation to rain events (either too early or too
late), the sample size was not big enough to detect samples
with elevated levels of these compounds or the areas chosen
for the study were not representative of other areas affected
by bushfires. It is likely however that the hypothesis that
these compounds may be washed into tanks was
unfounded.
Testing of nearby water from catchments in the same
geographical location was conducted both before and
after the first significant post-bushfire rainfall recorded in
the area. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were not
found at elevated levels (Department of Human Services,
Victoria, unpublished results) in these waterways either.
The results of microbiological indicator testing are
summarised in Table 6. No significant relationship was
found between the levels of microbiological indicator
organisms found in the samples and the maintenance
procedures of using a first flush system, cleaning the gutters
or cleaning the holding tank. A high percentage of samples
tested had significant levels of microbiological indicator
organisms. The presence of E. coli and faecal streptococci
may be indicators of faecal contamination and a potential
health risk.
Many studies have shown significant microbiological
contamination in rainwater stored in tanks for domestic
use has (Appan 1997; Banister et al. 1997; Verrinder &
Keleher 2001). Microbiological contamination may be a
result of many factors including animal droppings on the
catchment roof, dead animals and insects or organic
material on the roof or in gutters, soil, agricultural or
industrial waste or human sewage being washed into
tanks. The level of microbiological contamination found
in a rainwater tank sample is the result of a complex and
dynamic set of parameters. Factors involved include
physico-chemical properties of the water such as dis-
solved oxygen, pH and temperature, and the typ
e of tank, roof and guttering materials used to catch and
store rainwater. Overhanging trees, treatment of roofs, ash
from solid fuel burning stoves, dust, moss and lichen on
roofs and gutters, pesticides and other agricultural waste
can also contribute.
The microbiological results of studies conducted in Victoria
and South Australia when air contamination from bushfires
26 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
was not a consideration are summarised in Table 7. The results
of this study did not vary greatly from previous studies.
It was hypothesised that ash, embers and burnt organic
material from the bushfires would increase the turbidity
thus reducing disinfection effect and increase nutrient
levels. Although we cannot exclude air contamination
from the bushfires as a contributor to the number of
indicator organisms found in the samples, the results are not
dissimilar to previous work.
The presence of indicator organisms in rainwater stored
in tanks is not necessarily indicative of pathogens being
present. Verrinder & Keleher (2001) report that ‘exceeding
the numerical guidelines for the microbiological content
might not necessarily be a threat to the health of the public’. In
part this may be due to enhanced immunity in a population
regularly exposed to this water source. Participants in this
study were offered advice on tank water maintenance and
disinfection procedures.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to explore possible deleterious
effects of bushfires on the quality of rainwater captured
from roofs and stored in tanks for private supply. Of greatest
concern was the possibility of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) from burnt organic matter and
arsenic from burnt treated pine in the form of ash being
washed into storage tanks from roofs. None of these
parameters fell outside the ADWG, and even allowing for
the small number of tanks in this study, it is unlikely that
these compounds pose a threat to public health via water
following bushfires.
As with previous studies iron and zinc were found in
some samples at levels above those of the ADWG and this is
thought to be related to tank and roof materials. It is likely
that the elevated cadmium levels were also related to tank
or roof materials; however as cadmium is released into the
air during bushfires, contamination from this source cannot
be ruled out.
Elevated levels of microbiological indicator organisms
were found in a significant portion of the samples tested
confirming previous Australian studies. Given the similarity
with previous studies and the poor levels of tank mainten-
ance described by the respondents, these results are
probably not due to the effects of the bushfires, although
it cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.
As a significant rainfall event occurred before the collec-
tion of baseline samples, the results were compared with the
Table 7
|
Microbiological contamination in the samples in comparison with previous Australian tank water studies
Study No. of tanks in study Positive for faecal coliforms/ E. coli Positive for faecal streptococci Positive for coliforms
Fuller et al. 1991 41 20% (tanks) 26% (samples) No data
South Australia 1981
Lightbody 1993 60 18% (samples) 82% (samples) 71% (samples)
Victoria 1993
Bannister et al. 1997 20 28% No data 57%
Victoria 1997
Verrinder & Keleher 2001 100 38% No data 52%
Victoria 2001
This study 49 32% 73% 90%
Victoria 2003
27 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006
ADWG alone. A study comparing the parameters of rainwater
in the same tanks before and after bushfires would provide a
more meaningful comparison, as a large number of confound-
ing factors can cause samples to fall outside the ADWG.
The small sample size (49), has limited the generalisa-
bility of the study results; however, the health risk
associated with drinking rainwater stored in tanks following
bushfires appears to be low. Further investigation of how
best to communicate maintenance procedures for private
drinking water supplies to the public remains a public
health priority. In addition, as a precautionary measure, the
recommendation is to use first-flush or diversion systems for
tanks especially following times of significant air pollution
such as during and following bushfires.
REFERENCES
Appan, A. 1997 Roof water collection systems in some Southeast
Asian countries: status and water quality levels. J. Roy. Soc.
Health 117(5), 319 –323.
ARMCANZ (National Health and Medical Research Council of
Australia and New Zealand) 1996 Australian Drinking Water
Guidelines, www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/pdf/eh19.pdf.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) 1995
Toxicological profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). US Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia, www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
toxprofiles/phs69.htm, accessed 9 May 2003.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) 1999
Toxicological profile for cadmium. US Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia,
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs5.htm accessed 9 May 2003.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) 2000
Toxicological profile for arsenic. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia, www.
atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs2.htm, accessed 12 May 2003.
Banister, R., Westwood, J. & McNeill, A. 1997 Investigation of
Microbiological and Chemical Water Quality in Rainwater
Tanks in Victoria. Report No. 139/97. Department of Natural
Resources and Environment and Water ECOScience Pty Ltd,
Victoria, Australia.
CFA (Country Fire Association) 1998 North East Rural Directory,
Regions 23 and 24. CFA, North East Area, Wangaratta, Australia.
DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment) 2003 Final
Report from the Ministerial Taskforce on Bushfire Recovery.
Victorian Government, Melbourne, Australia, www.info.vic.
gov.au/bushfires.
Dobbs, A. J. & Grant, C. 1976 Report on the Burn ing of Wood
Treated with Wood Preservatives Containing Copper,
Chromium and Arsenic. Building Research Establishment,
Aylesbury, UK.
Fuller, C. O., Martin, T. J. & Walters, R. P. 1991 Quality Aspects of
Water Stored in Domestic Rainwater Tanks (A Preliminary
Study), Domestic rainwater tanks: Working Party, South
Australian Health Commission.
Heyworth, J. S., Maynard, E. J. & Cunliffe, D. 1998 Who drinks what?
Potable water use in South Australia. Water 25(1), 9–13.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) 1973
Database on Carcinogenic Risks to Humans:
Benz(a)anthracene Monograph, Vol. 3, pp. 45, www-cie.iarc.fr/
htdocs/monographs/vol03/benz(a)anthracene.html, accessed
24 September 2003.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) 1973
Database on Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Benzo(a)pyrene
Monograph, Vol. 3, pp. 91, www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/
monographs/vol03/benzo(a)pyrene.html, accessed 24
September 2003.
Lightbody, D. 1993 Pathogens in Rainwater Survey, internal
document. Health and Community Services, Victoria,
Australia.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
1995 18th edition. American Public Health Association/
American Water Works Association/Water Environment
Federation, Washington, DC.
Thomas, P. R. & Greene, G. R. 1993 Rainwater quality from
different roof catchments. Wat. Sci. Technol. 28(3–5),
291–299.
Verrinder, G. & Keleher, H. 2001 Domestic drinking water in rural
areas: Are water tanks on farms a health hazard? Environ.
Health 1(3), 51–56.
WHO (World Health Organisation) 2001 Fact Sheet: Arsenic in
Drinking Water, www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact210.html, accessed
19 May 2003.
Available online January 2006
28 J. Spinks et al.
|
Bushfires and tank rainwater quality Journal of Water and Health
|
04.1
|
2006