Heavy Metal Contamination Awareness and Perception Survey
Introduction
This analysis aims to understand public awareness and perceptions of heavy metal contamination and its associated health effects as part of an iGEM synthetic biology project developing a biofilter for water purification. A survey of 150 respondents was conducted to assess knowledge of heavy metals, contamination sources, risk perception, and health impacts. The survey responses were scored on a -1 to +1 scale representing incorrect or risk-minimizing to correct or risk-aware answers, with special weighting applied based on educational attainment (PhD, postdocs, Masters, Bachelors). This report presents detailed breakdowns by geographic state of residence, education/profession level, and age groups, supporting targeted outreach and communication strategies for the biofilter technology.
Key Awareness Percentages
- 82.7% of respondents were aware of at least one heavy metal (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic).
- 99.3% correctly identified common contamination sources such as industries, mines, agriculture, and e-waste.
- 92.0% recognized valid health effects caused by heavy metal contamination (skin, neurological, organ damage, cancer, developmental issues).
- 78.0% perceived heavy metal contamination as a serious issue (rating ≥7 on a 10-point scale).
Scoring Logic
- S_metals: +1 if respondent correctly lists any heavy metal (Pb, Hg, As, Cd, Cr); -1 if none; 0 if no clear response.
- S_sources: +1 if respondent identifies recognized common sources of heavy metals (industries, mines, agriculture, acid rain, rocks, e-waste, etc.); -1 otherwise or blank.
- S_serious: +1 if respondent perceives heavy metal contamination as serious (rating ≥7 on a 10-point scale), -1 rating ≤3, and 0 if neutral ratings.
- S_health: +1 if respondent correctly identifies likely health effects (skin disorders, neurological disorders, organ failure, developmental issues, cancer), -1 if selects implausible effects (enhanced immune system, improved vision, etc.), 0 otherwise.
State-wise sentiment summary
| State | Respondents (N) | Mean Sentiment | Weighted Sentiment (weighted by education level) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Odisha | 63 | 0.718 | 0.724 |
| West Bengal | 13 | 0.712 | 0.711 |
| Maharashtra | 11 | 0.636 | 0.609 |
| Tamil Nadu | 8 | 0.719 | 0.775 |
| Karnataka | 7 | 0.714 | 0.643 |
| Kerala | 7 | 0.679 | 0.679 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 6 | 0.875 | 0.875 |
| Rajasthan | 6 | 0.625 | 0.625 |
| Bihar | 4 | 0.625 | 0.625 |
| Others | ... | .... | .... |
Education/ Profession wise sentiment summary
| Education Level | Respondents (N) | Average Sentiment |
|---|---|---|
| Undergraduate (Bachelor's) | 102 | 0.743 |
| PhD | 5 | 0.900 |
| High school (12th) | 9 | 0.639 |
| Professional certifications (e.g., law, medicine) | 2 | 1.000 |
| Job searching | 1 | 1.000 |
| Others | ... | ... |
Age group wise sentiment summary
| Age Group | Respondents (N) | Average Sentiment |
|---|---|---|
| 25-34 | 11 | 0.841 |
| 55+ | 2 | 0.750 |
| 35-54 | 2 | 0.750 |
| <25< /td> | 123 | 0.724 |
| 45-54 | 14 | 0.589 |
| 35-44 | 0 | N/A |
The analysis reveals varied awareness levels across states, age groups, and education levels regarding heavy metal contamination risks and health impacts. High weighted scores among highly educated groups emphasize the importance of targeted educational outreach to bridge gaps observed in lower-scoring groups. State-wise data highlights regions like Odisha and West Bengal with relatively strong knowledge, whereas other states might benefit from increased awareness campaigns. The predominance of younger respondents underscores potential future outreach opportunities. Overall, the scoring methodology and collected data provide critical insights to inform communication strategies for the iGEM biofilter project, helping focus efforts where knowledge gaps and misconceptions persist in the population.