Data & Methodology — Wythe County

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

Contaminant Data — All Analytes

277 well testing events on record, covering 22 analytes. Data spans 1930 to 2026.

Contaminant Samples Years Detection Rate Distribution LowModHigh vs. Limit vs. VA Avg
Radon 4 2000–2013 100%
9% of limit ↓ 90% below
Arsenic 5 2000–2022 40%
8% of limit ~ typical
Chloride 18 1976–2022 100%
1% of limit ↓ 95% below
Fluoride 18 1976–2022 94%
2% of limit ↓ 33% below
HFPO-DA (GenX) municipal 14 2023–2024 0%
Iron 16 1976–2022 38%
8% of limit ↓ 90% below
Lead 5 2000–2022 40%
3% of limit ~ typical
Manganese 7 1976–2022 14%
2% of limit ↓ 98% below
Nitrate 15 1976–2022 100%
2% of limit ↓ 70% below
Nitrite 15 1976–2022 27%
0% of limit ↓ 71% below
PFHxS municipal 14 2023–2024 0%
PFNA municipal 14 2023–2024 0%
PFOA municipal 14 2023–2024 0%
PFOS municipal 14 2023–2024 0%
Sulfate 18 1976–2022 100%
1% of limit ↓ 90% below
Uranium 5 2000–2022 80%
1% of limit ↑ 151% above
E. coli 1 2004–2022 98%
Hardness 18 1976–2022 100%
↑ 64% above
PFBS municipal 14 2023–2024 0%
pH 11 1978–2022 100%
~ typical
Sodium 18 1976–2022 100%
↓ 95% below
Total Coliform 1 2013–2022 50%

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)

  • Chloride 18 samples
  • Fluoride 18 samples
  • Iron 16 samples
  • Nitrate 15 samples
  • Nitrite 15 samples
  • Sulfate 18 samples
  • Hardness 18 samples
  • Sodium 18 samples

Limited data (<15 samples) — interpret with caution

  • Radon 4 samples
  • Arsenic 5 samples
  • Lead 5 samples
  • Manganese 7 samples
  • Uranium 5 samples
  • E. coli 1 sample
  • pH 11 samples
  • Total Coliform 1 sample

No private-well PFAS data for Wythe County

We have no private well sampling data for PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and related chemicals) in Wythe 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 Wythe County

11 Active public water systems
16,720 Residents on public water

Public water systems in Wythe 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 Wythe 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 Wythe County Prevalence VA Average Source Year
Lead Heart disease rate 8.5% 6.7% 2020
Radon Cancer prevalence 8.4% 6.7% 2020

Source: CDC PLACES county-level estimates. Raw data: Download Wythe 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: 2026-07-15

Full methodology →