Data & Methodology — Mercer County

Full contaminant data, sample history, and sourcing for Mercer County. For readers who want to go beyond the summary.

Contaminant Data — All Analytes

46075 total samples analyzed across 24 analytes. Data spans 1923 to 2025.

Contaminant Samples Years Detection Rate Distribution LowModHigh vs. Limit vs. NJ Avg
Radon 64 1985–1999 100%
118% of limit ↓ 75% below
Lead 3 1963–1974 67%
693% of limit ↑ 1104% above
PFOS municipal 31 2023–2025 32%
0% of limit ↓ 100% below
Chloride 100 1923–2022 100%
10% of limit ↓ 87% below
PFOA municipal 43 2007–2025 42%
0% of limit ↓ 100% below
Iron 17 1925–1953 94%
28% of limit ↓ 92% below
Uranium 55 1971–2012 98%
2% of limit ↓ 58% below
PFHxS municipal 31 2023–2025 16%
0% of limit ↓ 100% below
Fluoride 3 1948–1953 67%
4% of limit ↓ 43% below
Sulfate 31 1924–1959 97%
9% of limit ↓ 48% below
PFNA municipal 33 2007–2025 45%
0% of limit
HFPO-DA (GenX) municipal 62 2021–2025 0%
0% of limit
Arsenic 4 1970–1974 75%
20% of limit ↓ 45% below
Nitrite 16 1999–2000 94%
1% of limit ~ typical
Nitrite 5 2004–2023 80%
75% of limit ↑ 1157% above
Hardness 23 2000–2024 100% ↓ 22% below
E. coli 1 2002 0%
Fecal Coliform 1 1972 0%
Total Coliform 1 1962 0%
Nitrate 1 1925 0%
Manganese 1 1950 0%
PFBS municipal 31 2023–2025 6%
↓ 100% below
Sodium 91 1944–2024 100% ↓ 94% below
pH 21 1946–2013 100% ~ typical

Distribution shows the share of samples in each concentration band relative to the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): Low = below half the MCL, Moderate = between half and the MCL, High = above the MCL. Analytes without an MCL (e.g. sodium, pH) show — in the limit columns. State average is based on county median values across NJ.

Data Coverage & Gaps

Well-sampled analytes (15+ samples)

  • Radon 64 samples
  • PFOS 31 samples
  • Chloride 100 samples
  • PFOA 43 samples
  • Iron 17 samples
  • Uranium 55 samples
  • PFHxS 31 samples
  • Sulfate 31 samples
  • PFNA 33 samples
  • HFPO-DA (GenX) 62 samples
  • Nitrite 16 samples
  • Hardness 23 samples
  • PFBS 31 samples
  • Sodium 91 samples
  • pH 21 samples

Limited data (<15 samples) — interpret with caution

  • Lead 3 samples
  • Fluoride 3 samples
  • Arsenic 4 samples
  • Nitrite 5 samples
  • E. coli 1 sample
  • Fecal Coliform 1 sample
  • Total Coliform 1 sample
  • Nitrate 1 sample
  • Manganese 1 sample

Public vs. Private Water in Mercer County

97 Active public water systems
323,956 Residents on public water

Public water systems in Mercer County are regulated by the EPA and must test and report contaminant levels. Private well owners are responsible for their own testing — there is no routine monitoring of private wells by any government agency.

CDC Health Outcome Correlations

Where contaminants detected in Mercer County have established associations with specific health outcomes, we cross-reference CDC PLACES county-level prevalence data. This is a contextual signal, not a causal claim.

Contaminant Associated Condition Mercer County Prevalence NJ Average Source Year
Lead Heart disease rate 5.1% 5.8% 2020
PFOA Cancer prevalence 6.1% 6.2% 2020
Uranium Kidney disease rate 2.5% 2.7% 2020

Source: CDC PLACES county-level estimates. Raw data: Download Mercer County CDC PLACES data →

Data Sources

This report aggregates data from the following public databases:

Methodology

Raw records are downloaded from the Water Quality Portal and normalized to µg/L (ppb). Records are deduplicated by sample ID and date, and certified outliers are excluded. Analyte names are mapped to EPA canonical forms. Detection rates, distribution bands, and MCL comparisons are computed from the normalized dataset.

Distribution bands use the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level as the threshold: concentrations below 50% of the MCL are classed as Low, between 50% and 100% as Moderate, and above 100% as High. For analytes without an MCL (sodium, hardness, pH), distribution is not computed.

State comparison uses the median of county median values across all counties in NJ with at least one sample for that analyte.

Last updated: 2026-06-24

Full methodology →