Data & Methodology — Roanoke County

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

Contaminant Data — All Analytes

4714 total samples analyzed across 20 analytes. Data spans 0001 to 2026.

Contaminant Samples Years Detection Rate Distribution LowModHigh vs. Limit vs. VA Avg
Radon 4 1999–2014 100%
100% of limit ~ typical
Manganese 33 1978–2026 100%
24% of limit ↓ 81% below
Sulfate 42 1–2025 100%
5% of limit ↓ 55% below
Uranium 7 1978–2022 86%
1% of limit ~ typical
Arsenic 12 1999–2024 100%
2% of limit ↓ 71% below
Lead 10 2006–2022 100%
0% of limit ↓ 85% below
Fluoride 23 1945–2022 100%
2% of limit ↓ 41% below
Iron 5 1945–1955 80%
15% of limit ↓ 81% below
Chloride 41 1–2022 100%
4% of limit ↓ 69% below
Nitrate 30 2001–2012 97%
5% of limit ~ typical
Chloride 41 1–2022 100%
4% of limit ↓ 69% below
Fluoride 23 1945–2022 100%
2% of limit ↓ 41% below
Iron 5 1945–1955 80%
15% of limit ↓ 81% below
Lead 10 2006–2022 100%
0% of limit ↓ 85% below
Nitrite 1 1974 0%
Hardness 18 2001–2018 100% ↑ 113% above
pH 10 1945–2020 90% ~ typical
Sodium 45 1–2022 100% ↓ 62% below
E. coli 1 2013 0%
Total Coliform 1 2013 0%

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 VA.

Data Coverage & Gaps

Well-sampled analytes (15+ samples)

  • Manganese 33 samples
  • Sulfate 42 samples
  • Fluoride 23 samples
  • Chloride 41 samples
  • Nitrate 30 samples
  • Chloride 41 samples
  • Fluoride 23 samples
  • Hardness 18 samples
  • Sodium 45 samples

Limited data (<15 samples) — interpret with caution

  • Radon 4 samples
  • Uranium 7 samples
  • Arsenic 12 samples
  • Lead 10 samples
  • Iron 5 samples
  • Iron 5 samples
  • Lead 10 samples
  • Nitrite 1 sample
  • pH 10 samples
  • E. coli 1 sample
  • Total Coliform 1 sample

No private-well PFAS data for Roanoke County

We have no private well sampling data for PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and related chemicals) in Roanoke County. PFAS testing for private wells requires a dedicated lab panel (~$300–$500). If you are near a military base, airport, or industrial site, consider testing proactively. Learn more about PFAS →

Public vs. Private Water in Roanoke County

16 Active public water systems
2,952 Residents on public water

Public water systems in Roanoke 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 Roanoke 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 Roanoke County Prevalence VA Average Source Year
Radon Cancer prevalence 8.3% 6.7% 2020

Source: CDC PLACES county-level estimates. Raw data: Download Roanoke 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 VA with at least one sample for that analyte.

Last updated: 2026-06-01

Full methodology →