Severe weather has been wreaking havoc on communities across the country, damaging critical infrastructure, even the quality of our water supply. Flooding and landslides from storms and recent atmospheric rivers have caused problems with drinking water infrastructure of both public and private water systems, contaminating water sources, leaving individuals without safe drinking water for days and sometimes weeks.
Stormwater runoff can contaminate both groundwater and surface water during rainstorms, especially heavy precipitation events including hurricanes and atmospheric rivers. As stormwater runs into a storm drain or the nearest body of water, it picks up both biological and chemical contaminants from the ground that make their way into the water supply. Impervious surfaces exacerbate this problem, as stormwater cannot penetrate the ground and instead sits on top of these surfaces, contributing to flooding during a hurricane. Some local governments, such as Washington, D.C. and other municipalities surrounding the Chesapeake Bay, are working to combat this issue by replacing impervious surfaces with materials that soak up stormwater and allow it to permeate the ground instead of sitting on top of surfaces gathering contaminants that harm drinking water supply.
The influx of water from rain and flooding from severe storms can overwhelm both public and private water systems. Combined sewer overflows are systems designed to collect stormwater runoff, sewage, and other wastewater for transportation to a wastewater treatment plant. There the water is treated before moving on to a larger body. However, heavy rain and flooding can cause these systems to overflow, allowing untreated water to spill into nearby water sources, potentially contaminating drinking water supplies. This includes wells, which may also become contaminated with sewage, bacteria, and other microorganisms from stormwater runoff, flooding, or broken levees.
Water treatment plants are not immune to the power outages and structural damage caused by high winds from severe storms. Treatment plants can lose power and the infrastructure can be damaged during these storms, leaving facilities without the ability to treat water. Equipment and infrastructure in water treatment plants can also be contaminated by runoff and floodwater. The inability of treatment plants to treat water due to power outages leads to boil water notices to ensure people in the affected area are not ingesting biological contaminants through their drinking water.
Hurricane Harvey made landfall in southeast Texas on August 25, 2017, and bombarded the Gulf Coast with heavy rain and wind for days. The Category 4 storm caused $125 million in damage in Texas and Louisiana, including damage to water systems. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 61 public drinking water systems and 40 wastewater facilities were declared inoperable and 203 boil water notices were issued during the storm. Flooding also damaged chemical and energy plants in the area, leading to the contamination of surface water and drinking water reservoirs with sewage, wastewater and toxic chemicals. All inoperable facilities, except one wastewater facility, were restored in the cleanup process following the storm. However, tap water was not safe to drink in some communities for months, with boil water notices lasting into December for some areas affected by the storm.
The best way to avoid losing access to clean drinking water is to prepare before the storm arrives. While the links below focus on making preparations ahead of a hurricane, these are useful for anyone in the path of a severe storm that may cause flooding or interruptions in water service.
The National Hurricane Survival Initiative recommends beginning preparations as far in advance as possible to avoid the chaos at stores right before the storm hits. Buying bottled water is an option for individuals preparing for a hurricane, but prices can increase dramatically right before a storm due to increased demand. Alternatively, individuals can store their own water in the days before a hurricane hits. The NHSI recommends storing water in containers made out of durable materials, such as plastic bottles. Because hurricanes can leave water treatment plants without power and contaminate water sources, individuals should prepare enough water, about a gallon, per person for at least three days.
The Centers for Disease Control also offers a detailed list of essential preparations to undertake before a storm, providing valuable guidance for severe weather and floods beyond hurricanes.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
How Do Wildfires Impact Water Quality?Exposure to any amount of lead can cause serious health impacts, particularly in young children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), exposure to low levels of lead can cause permanent cognitive, academic, and behavioral difficulties in children. There is a serious disconnect between the legal limit and the levels deemed appropriate by major health organizations. Lead is a neurotoxin, and children should not consume any amount, especially at school.
Lead accumulates in water when it leaches from lead-containing pipes, plumbing, and fixtures. The periods of inertia in plumbing during weekends and summer vacation allow water to sit stagnant for extended periods of time. The longer water sits stagnant in pipes in the distribution system, the more lead can accumulate. This is the major difference between lead accumulation in homes vs. schools and childcare facilities. Some school districts make sure to flush pipes in August before the start of the school year. Unfortunately, some schools don’t have the funds to ensure proper flushing. In an average household, water flows on a daily basis and doesn’t sit stagnant for more than 12 hours at a time. Schools retain stagnant water in the pipes over weekends, and more so during long weekends, holiday breaks, and especially during summer breaks.
Schools in the United States are old, and many were built with lead-containing pipes, plumbing, and fixtures. According to data from the Department of Education, the average age of a public school in the United States is 44 years old. Additionally, children are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of lead exposure. The current federal Action Level for lead in drinking water is 15 parts per billion. Unfortunately, schools are not required to follow this already weak standard for municipal water. The EPA suggests schools maintain lead levels under 20 parts per billion. This is shocking, considering that public health organizations agree that there is no safe level of lead for children.
The New York Times recently reported that several school districts around the country have detected Legionella, the bacteria that causes Legionnaires' Disease, in schools' drinking water. Legionnaires Disease is a type of pneumonia that can form in stagnant water. It's spread through the inhalation of small water droplets that contain the disease - from sources including showers, toilets, and water fountains. Prolonged school closures including summer and holiday breaks, and even long weekends provide an ideal environment for Legionella to manifest in drinking water.
There is no Federal law that requires schools to test for lead. Some states have created laws that mandate schools to test; however, a 2018 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), found that only 15 states actually require schools to test for lead. As of 2018, 43% of public schools tested for lead in drinking water.
There’s no guarantee that the water coming out of school fountains is free of lead. As a parent or member of the community, there are a few things you can do to ensure that children are not being exposed to lead. Once schools open their doors again, you can contact your superintendent’s office to make them aware of this issue. A common mitigation technique is to allow water lines to run for an extended period of time. Parents can also speak with principals to make sure that custodians and maintenance staff flush water lines before kids go back to school. When in doubt, have your children fill up a water bottle from home with filtered water and bring to school!
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:What Are They:
Undersink water filters are stored in the cabinet under your sink, and can either attach directly to your cold water line or to a separate dedicated faucet for filtered water. Undersink filters remove contaminants at the point of use.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
What Are They:
Filters including pitcher-style filters like Brita and countertop systems like Berkey. The performance of these types of filters is directly related to the speed at which water flows through the system.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
What Are They:
Faucet filters are installed at the end of your faucet. Pur is one of the most popular brands to make this style of filter. This filters your water at the point of use, including the water that flows through the faucet.Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Case Study: Newark, New Jersey distributed Pur end-of-faucet filters to residents during the summer of 2019 after the city discovered that it was in exceedance of the federal Action Level. The filters provided by Newark city officials did not remove lead. Click here to learn more.
What Are They:
Whole house filters are installed at the point of entry of when the water enters the house, so they're usually located outside the home or inside the garage.
Disadvantages:
What Are They:
Reverse Osmosis or RO water filters use a type of filtration technology that pushes water through a semipermeable membrane to remove contaminants. The term "reverse osmosis" describes the technology used, but it does not indicate anything about the performance of the system.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
In Short: There’s a ton of variability when it comes to filtration performance, so you need to ask for third party test data when shopping for an RO water filter. If you are determined that RO is the right choice for you, we recommend going with this APEC system (that we've tested and highly recommend) because in addition to removing fluoride and minerals, it is rated to remove things like lead, arsenic, and chromium 6 as well.
What Are They: Most fridge filters are built into the refrigerator, and filter the water for ice as well as the water coming out of the beverage dispenser. Icemaker filters are designed to filter the water that's used to make the ice.
Advantages: Most refrigerator filters are typically designed to improve the taste of drinking water, so they mostly remove chlorine.
Disadvantages:
If you have young children that use the fridge spigot for drinking water, bear in mind that children are most susceptible to health impacts associated with exposure to contaminants such as lead, chromium 6, and PFAS. Hydroviv makes a refrigerator/icemaker filter system that can be installed in an adjacent cabinet or before your fridge.
1. Does it work?
Check the filter manufacturer's claims on contaminant removal and ask to see their data!
2. Will it work FOR ME?
Hydroviv makes it our business to help you better understand your water. As always, feel free to take advantage of our “help no matter what” approach to technical support! Our water nerds will work to answer your questions and provide contaminant and water quality info for water in you area. Reach out by dropping us an email (hello@hydroviv.com) or through our live chat (https://hydroviv.com).
Other Articles We Think You’ll Enjoy:
Does Boiling My Water Purify It?
Why Is There White Chalky Residue On My Cookware?
Don't Drink Or Cook Using Hot Water From Your Faucet!
In 2016, the EPA set a Health Advisory Level (not regulatory) of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in Drinking Water. Many Health experts agree, however, that 70 ppt is too high.
Last year, the EPA proposed a reduction of their current Health Advisory Level down to 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS. It’s important to note that a Health Advisory Level is the amount of a contaminant that is NOT likely to cause negative health impacts. This reduction is over 17,000 times lower than what the EPA considered safe in drinking water just 6 years ago. However, health advisory levels in general, are entirely non-enforceable.
Several states have established their own regulatory standards or advisory levels for PFAS in drinking water, but these vary widely from state to state. Some states have Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) which are actionable Regulatory Levels, while other States have "Advisory Levels" or "Notification Levels" which do not require action or remediation.
Of note, New York has the lowest regulatory level nationwide for PFAS in drinking water, at 10 ppt for both PFOA and PFOS. Massachusetts was one of the earliest states to institute a MCL for PFAS, and established a limit of 20 ppt for 6 types of PFAS combined, that they call PFAS6. California, which set a Public Health Goal for Chromium 6 levels that has been used as a benchmark nationwide, has the lowest PFAS Notification Level out of any state in the country, but this is a non-enforceable guideline, not regulatory: 5.1 ppt for PFOA and 6.5 ppt for PFOS.
“My state has a guidance level for PFAS so therefore I must be protected.” This isn’t entirely true. Unfortunately Health Advisories, Health Goals, Guidance Levels, and other similar legalese are non-enforceable. State officials can make recommendations but it’s really up to municipalities to implement necessary changes. The tables below describe the most current* state regulations and advisories for PFAS levels in drinking water.
Enforceable: Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) & Action Level (AL)
Non-Enforceable: Health Advisory Level, Health Goal, Guidance Level, Notification Level
*Current regulations as of April 12, 2022
It’s important to understand that PFAS is likely to be in your tap water, and may be harmful even at very low levels. We advise people to use a filter that’s been NSF Certified for removal of PFOA and PFOS. Duke University completed a study in 2020 that tested various filtration brands and their ability to remove PFAS from drinking water. The results found that popular brands including Brita and Pur did not do a good job of removing PFAS compounds. Standard in-refrigerator filters tested by the Duke research team also failed to remove PFAS. The full results of this study can be found here. Hydroviv filters are both NSF-certified and third-party tested to remove PFAS chemicals. To request our full testing and removal data, please email hello@hydroviv.com.
Others Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
Health Effects Caused by Exposure to PFAS Chemicals
Over 60% of Toxic Wastewater Biosolids Are Used to Fertilize Farmland in the U.S.
95% of U.S. Tap Water Contains Microplastics
]]>
Recibimos muchas preguntas sobre los medidores de TDS/ppm y las mediciones de TDS. Si bien nos encanta cuando las personas toman medidas para aprender más sobre su agua, algunas personas (incluidos los periodistas de publicaciones acreditadas - Ejemplo #1 y Ejemplo #2) han usado medidores de TDS/ppm para sacar conclusiones falsas sobre la calidad del agua, lo que provoca ansiedad en las personas. ya en medio de una terrible crisis de calidad del agua. En este artículo, respondemos las preguntas que más nos hacen sobre las mediciones y los medidores de TDS. Si usted tiene curiosidad acerca de los filtros de agua que se ocupan de los contaminantes significativos, consulte este estudio reciente sobre filtros de agua realizado por Duke/NC State.
TDS es la abreviatura en inglés de “Total Dissolved Solids” (sólidos disueltos totales, o SDT), que está relacionado con el contenido total de minerales cargados en el agua. El TDS se puede determinar fácilmente midiendo la conductividad de una muestra de agua, que es exactamente lo que hacen las sondas TDS económicas. Los medidores de TDS generalmente muestran la cantidad total de sólidos disueltos en partes por millón de ppm. Si comienza con agua desionizada (que tiene un TDS de cero) y la expone a minerales que contienen sodio, calcio y magnesio... el TDS de ppm del agua aumenta. Esta es la razón por la que no existe el agua desionizada en la naturaleza. Dependiendo de la geología de una región, los niveles naturales de TDS/ppm pueden variar en los EE. UU. y esta variabilidad no tiene nada que ver con la calidad del agua (excepto en casos extremos cuando el agua es demasiado salada para beber).
Debido a que TDS/ppm es una medida agregada de compuestos cargados en el agua, las cosas sin carga como el aceite de motor, la gasolina, los productos farmacéuticos y los pesticidas no contribuyen a una medición de TDS/ppm. O, más relevante para los problemas actuales de calidad del agua a nivel nacional, los medidores de TDS/ppm no detectan PFAS en el agua potable. Por ejemplo, el vaso de la izquierda en la imagen de arriba contiene agua desionizada con malatión (un pesticida organofosforado) disuelto en una concentración 100 veces mayor que la permitida por la EPA para el agua potable, y la sonda TDS/ppm indica 000.
Aunque estos metales tóxicos se cargan cuando se disuelven en agua, un medidor de TDS/ppm no brinda información significativa sobre su presencia o concentración en el agua. Hay dos motivos principales para esto:
Un medidor de TDS/ppm es una medida no selectiva y no puede diferenciar entre diferentes iones. Se necesita un equipo más sofisticado para realizar ese tipo de mediciones. El valor de 184 que se midió con un medidor de TDS en un destacado artículo del Huffington Post no fue la concentración de plomo... fue el nivel natural de TDS del agua (que está dominado por minerales como calcio, magnesio y sodio).
Un medidor de TDS no es lo suficientemente sensible para medir niveles tóxicos de plomo, cromo 6 o arsénico, incluso si están presentes en una muestra. Esto se debe a que la lectura que se muestra en un medidor de TDS económico es en partes por millón, mientras que contaminantes como el plomo, el cromo 6 y el arsénico son tóxicos en concentraciones de parte por billón (1000 veces menos). Usar un medidor de TDS para medir las concentraciones de plomo en ppb en el agua del grifo es como tratar de usar el odómetro de un automóvil para medir la altura de un niño... es la herramienta incorrecta para el trabajo. Por ejemplo, la muestra de agua que se muestra en el lado derecho de la imagen del encabezado de este artículo tiene niveles que son 100 veces superiores al límite de la EPA, y la lectura de TDS osciló entre 000 y 001.
Para reiterar: no se pueden realizar mediciones significativas de plomo y arsénico utilizando un medidor de TDS/ppm (o cualquier otro dispositivo portátil). Deben ser medidos por personal capacitado en laboratorios analíticos que utilizan equipos científicos mucho más sofisticados. Los filtros Hydroviv Undersink cuentan con la certificación NSF/ANSI 53 para eliminar el plomo del agua potable.
No. Los filtros de Hydroviv selectivamente filtran cosas dañinas de su agua (como plomo, cromo 6, pesticidas, productos farmacéuticos, productos derivados del petróleo y subproductos de desinfección) y cosas que hacen que el agua sepa y huela mal (cloro, cloraminas y azufre). Los sistemas de filtración de agua de Hydroviv no eliminan minerales como el calcio y el magnesio porque no hay razón para hacerlo. De hecho, utilizamos algunos tipos de medios de filtración que en realidad agregan minerales al agua, por lo cual, los niveles de TDS/ppm en el agua filtrada a través de un sistema Hydroviv a veces son ligeramente más altos que en el agua sin filtrar.
No. No hay absolutamente ninguna razón para beber agua desionizada o de TDS/ppm baja. Si le preocupa la calidad del agua, compra un filtro de agua potable eficaz que elimine los contaminantes dañinos de su agua.
Si tiene un medidor de TDS/ppm, le recomendamos que se lo dé a un niño curioso que tenga interés por la ciencia. Úselo como una oportunidad para enseñarles sobre los minerales disueltos animándolos a probar diferentes tipos de agua (por ejemplo, destilada, lluvia, río, lago) y tratar de explicar sus hallazgos. Siéntase libre de comunicarse a hello@hydroviv.com para ideas educativas que involucran medidores de TDS.
]]>
A recent study found that freshwater contamination from road deicing salts caused significant increases in the salinity of the freshwater. These include lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands, resulting in issues with native wildlife as well as widespread contamination of drinking water supplies. The contamination is primarily from excess chloride and sodium, which affects both surface water and groundwater, for municipal water suppliers as well as private wells. Sodium is not the only concern, however, as scientists have recognized that magnesium chloride and calcium chloride can be more toxic to freshwater organisms than sodium chloride.
Para nuestra evaluación de los problemas de calidad del agua potable del condado de Miami-Dade, recopilamos datos de pruebas de calidad del agua del Departamento de Agua y Alcantarillado del Condado de Miami-Dade, el Grupo de Trabajo Ambiental (EWG en inglés) y la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE. UU. Cruzamos los datos de calidad del agua de la ciudad con estudios de toxicidad en la literatura científica y médica, y pensando en los próximos cambios regulatorios. Los filtros de agua que vendemos para Miami están optimizados para filtrar los contaminantes teniendo en cuenta estos problemas.
Hydroviv es una empresa de filtración de agua que utiliza datos de calidad del agua para optimizar los filtros de agua para el agua de cada cliente. Los contaminantes que enumeramos anteriormente son lo que consideramos que son los principales "puntos de énfasis" que usamos para construir filtros de agua que se construyen específicamente para Miami, pero nuestros filtros brindan una amplia protección contra una amplia gama de contaminantes.
Los filtros de agua potable de Hydroviv cuentan con las certificaciones NSF según el estándar 42 (efectos estéticos: eliminación de cloro) y el estándar 53 (efectos sobre la salud: eliminación de plomo, VOC y PFOA/PFOS), y están comprobados de forma independiente para eliminar cientos de contaminantes.
Si usted está interesado en obtener más información sobre los filtros de agua que han sido optimizados para el agua potable del condado de Miami-Dade, no dude en visitar www.hydroviv.com para hablar con un Water Nerd en nuestra función de chat en vivo o envíenos un correo electrónico a hello@hydroviv.com
]]>
Globally, we have lost one-third of the world’s forests, or 2 billion hectares (an area twice the size of the United States). More often than not, humans are responsible for deforestation. The land that surrounds a body of water plays a critical role in water quality and availability. Forested land not only acts as a “natural filter” for incoming water, but also reduces the risk of flooding.
Forested areas are cleared to make way for agriculture, commercial buildings, homes, and other large scale construction projects. Deforestation results in significant changes to the surrounding and global ecosystems, and habitat loss can lead to species extinction. The most extreme examples of this include the Amazon Rainforest, which has shrunk 18% in the last 40 years. Illegal mining, illegal logging, agricultural expansion, lack of government control, and climate change have all contributed to deforestation in the Amazon.
Deforestation has lesser-known secondary consequences that are becoming a focal point for scientists. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen back into the environment. Without trees, the carbon accumulates in the atmosphere which contributes to rising global temperatures.
Reduction in Rainfall and Global Implications:
Forests help control the water cycle by regulating rainfall and evaporation. The layers of the forest canopy, branches, and roots store and release water vapor, which helps to control rainfall. Forests also help reduce the impacts from flooding by blocking and slowing down the flow of runoff from storms. Deforestation, however, weakens this process, leading to irregular rainfall, including drought and flooding.
Also, while deforestation may occur locally, its effects are global. For example, in a 2005 study, deforestation of Central Africa caused a decrease in precipitation of about 5%–15% in the Great Lakes region, mostly centered in Illinois, with a peak decrease of about 35% in February. In addition, a 25% decrease in rainfall in Texas was attributed to Amazon deforestation. While the three major forest basins do not respond the same, deforestation in other areas have also been observed to cause changes in rainfall and the water cycle elsewhere in the world. The decrease in rainfall combined with the increase in water usage across the United States are contributing to severe drought and aridification throughout many states.
Increased Erosion and Runoff:
Forested land does a lot of the “heavy lifting” in terms of filtration. Soil absorbs pollutants and helps to slow the rate of flowing water. The tree roots also anchor soil against erosion, which reduces runoff, and lowers downstream water treatment costs. When forests are disturbed and degraded, (from deforestation or wildfires or a combination of the two), sediment flows into streams and pollutes water.
Reduced Water Quality/Access to Drinkable Water:
Scientists conducted a study in Malawi on deforestation and water quality. They found that when deforestation increased 1%, it was equivalent to a nearly 1% decrease in access to clean water, which was equivalent to a decrease in rainfall of nearly 10%. They also observed that access to source water did not mean people had more drinkable water. Deforestation increases soil erosion, resulting in higher soil, sediment, and turbidity levels in the water, increasing the need for drinking water treatment.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
Wildfires and Water Quality
How Do Hurricanes Affect Your Drinking Water?
Why Home Water Filters Are Better For The Environment
Studies have found that pregnant women are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of Arsenic exposure. Arsenic exposure can drastically impact reproductive outcomes, affect fetal development, and can lead to long term health problems. It’s estimated that 2 million Americans have private wells and drink water with unsafe levels of Arsenic. However, the association between chronic arsenic exposure and adverse pregnancy outcomes is not widely recognized.
Arsenic exposure most commonly occurs from drinking water, especially from well water or groundwater sources–arsenic is found in the ground, is naturally occurring, and leaches into groundwater. If you use a private well in certain areas of the country, it’s likely that Arsenic is present at elevated levels. Even if you don’t use a private well for drinking water, your municipal tap supply can still contain high levels of Arsenic. Places like Phoenix, Arizona, Lincoln, Nebraska, and Reno, Nevada, are notorious for having high levels of arsenic in tap water, because these areas typically source drinking water from the ground. People using municipal water should check their water supplier’s water quality reports to get an understanding of whether arsenic is present in their drinking water. Waste from coal ash ponds and other industrial activities are two other ways that arsenic can contaminate water supplies.
Increased Risk of Miscarriage, Infant Mortality, & Lower Birth Weight:
During pregnancy, arsenic can pass through the placenta from mother to fetus, resulting in fetal exposure levels equivalent to those of the mother. Recent studies indicate a link between arsenic exposure and a moderately increased risk of impaired fetal growth and increased fetal and infant mortality. A comprehensive review of research studies showed that high levels of arsenic in groundwater (>50 ppb) were associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and infant mortality. In addition, 4 studies indicated that exposure to environmental arsenic was associated with a significant reduction in birth weight.
Neurotoxic Effects on Fetal Development:
Prenatal and early postnatal exposure to arsenic has been linked to reduction in brain development, including lower brain weight and reduced growth and development of pathways in the brain. The scientists from these studies conclude that “the published literature indicates that arsenic is a human developmental neurotoxicant.”
Fetal Exposure Can Affect Health Into Adulthood:
Studies have indicated that arsenic can access the developing brain and cause neurotoxic effects including deficits in intelligence and memory, although some neurocognitive consequences may manifest only later in life. Some of these health effects include a higher mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease. This is supported by epidemiologic studies that these and other negative health outcomes in adulthood suggest a link to arsenic exposure in early life.
Maternal Health During Pregnancy:
Studies have reported that arsenic exposure is linked to increased blood pressure and anemia during pregnancy.
Arsenic exposure in adults is associated with a host of negative health effects including cancers of the skin, bladder, lung, kidney, liver, prostate, and nasal passages. Non-cancer related negative health effects have been observed to affect the cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunological, neurological, and endocrine systems. In addition to its role in multiple types of cancer, long-term exposure to arsenic has been linked to developmental effects, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity and diabetes.
Because of the numerous negative health effects caused by exposure to arsenic – both long-term exposure in adults as well as effects on the fetus and mother during pregnancy, we strongly advise people (especially those drinking water from private wells), to get their water tested, to look up the water quality reports from their municipal water supplier (if they’re on city water), and to mitigate for arsenic if it’s present in their drinking water whenever possible.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) federal drinking water standard for arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion (ppb). However, drinking water with arsenic at levels lower than the EPA standard over many years can still increase your risk of cancer and other health effects. As a result, EPA sets health risk goals, and the EPA’s goal for arsenic in drinking water is 0 µg/L (0 ppb). This means that realistically, there is no safe level of arsenic in drinking water. When arsenic is present in drinking water, mitigation measures for arsenic removal should be implemented whenever possible.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just announced a dramatic decrease in what they’re considering a “safe” level of certain PFAS in drinking water. EPA’s recent announcement reiterates just how serious the PFAS crisis has become in the U.S. What do these new “safe levels” mean for you and what action do you need to take?
EPA is proposing to reduce the current Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS combined, to 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS. This reduction is over 17,000 times lower than what was considered safe by EPA just 6 years ago. EPA also introduced Health Advisory Levels of 10 parts per trillion for GenX and 2,000 parts per trillion for PFBS. It’s important to note that a Health Advisory Level is the amount of a contaminant that is NOT likely to cause negative health impacts. For example, drinking water with PFBS at a concentration above 2,000 parts per trillion could cause adverse health effects, according to EPA.
EPA admits that these super low levels could be very difficult to identify with current methods of detection: “It is possible for PFOA or PFOS to be present in drinking water at levels that exceed health advisories even if testing indicates no level of these chemicals” and that PFOA and PFOS can only “be reliably measured using specified analytical methods in appropriate laboratory settings.” While the intention of these new Health Advisory Levels are in good faith, they’re setting up municipal treatment plants to fail - especially those in rural and underfunded communities.
The general public likely won’t feel any real impacts for several years. Interim levels, and health advisory levels in general, are entirely non-enforceable. This means that water providers are not legally bound to meet these lower recommendations anytime soon. The goal of health advisories is that they will eventually turn into enforceable standards, which EPA has plans to implement in 2023. The only real impact to public health is that PFAS levels that were once considered “safe” by EPA are now potentially dangerous.
First, these new health advisory levels are unattainable by nearly every single public water utility in the country. Not only will someone (taxpayers) have to pay for new treatment technology, but it could take years if not decades to get new treatment up and running. It’s unclear what will happen to utility providers if they violate this law, or what people are supposed to do while these new guidelines take effect. Second, these new guidelines don’t address the root of the problem. PFAS are still being produced in the U.S., and are still a key ingredient in several consumer products. Even though drinking water has the potential to be addressed, there are hundreds of other ways that people are exposed to PFAS chemicals. Finally, this new change only addresses four of the over 9,000 different PFAS variations that are being found in the environment.
Others Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:EPA recently proposed a ban on a certain type of Asbestos that’s still being imported into the U.S. today. Experts and regulators worry that this ban will increase the use of a different toxic chemical that’s already of concern in all 50 states.
If you thought Asbestos was already a banned substance in the U.S., you’re not alone! EPA has been gradually phasing out asbestos since 1975, and the current proposal would officially close this chapter for good. Still, it’s estimated that there are over 40,000 asbestos-related deaths in the United States annually. Chrysotile Asbestos, also known as “white” asbestos, accounts for the majority of cases of mesothelioma and asbestos disease in the U.S. Patients with these types of diseases are often exposed via inhalation in a work setting, but contaminated drinking water is a known pathway of exposure. While the U.S. is working to ban Asbestos entirely, production and use is actually increasing in certain developing countries because of its low cost and effectiveness.
Chrysotile Asbestos is best known for its heat resistant properties, making it an ideal material for fireproofing various products. It’s also found in things like asphalt, brake pads, plastics, chlorine diaphragms, and roofing materials. Chrysotile Asbestos is used by one-third of chlor-alkali manufacturers, which are responsible for producing chlorine. Chlorine is used to produce 88% of all pharmaceuticals processed in the U.S., not to mention its widespread use in tap water disinfection. All types of Asbestos can enter the environment during manufacturing, building demolition/construction, and mining operations. Under this proposed rule, EPA would prohibit the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, commercial usage, and importation of Chrysotile Asbestos.
Products that still use Asbestos rely on the material for its heat-resistant properties, as previously mentioned. Manufacturers, and even EPA, acknowledge that the replacement substance will likely be PFAS chemicals. Experts note that PFAS are not a suitable alternative for Chrysotile Asbestos because of the long list of dangerous health effects associated with these contaminants, including cancer. EPA acknowledges that: “the transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms could result in great usage and release of PFAS.” Many states have created their own regulations and in some cases have banned the use of PFAS chemicals because of their toxicity. EPA and other federal agencies are focusing their efforts on regulating two different PFAS variations: PFOA and PFOS. While scientists have a good understanding of these two types, there are more than 9,000 different PFAS variations up for grabs to replace Chrysotile Asbestos.
We should ban all types of Asbestos known to cause negative health impacts, and any other contaminants known to be toxic for that matter. However, the regulatory process can take decades, and action is often taken well after people become sick and die. For example, the public has known about the risks of asbestos exposure since 1906, when the first reported death was documented. It’s taken over a century to ban a substance we’ve known to be incredibly toxic for over 100 years. By allowing PFAS to replace Chrysotile Asbestos, we’re knowingly replacing one toxic substance with another.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:Over 60% of leftover sewage waste or "biosolids" are used by farmers to fertilize crops in the U.S. A recent study found that a category of cancer-causing chemicals called PFAS were present in a majority of the fertilizing sludge - impacting food, livestock, and ultimately drinking water. Farmers expect that the biosolids coming from municipalities are entirely safe to use on their crops. Consumers also have this same expectation when buying produce at the grocery store. The reality is that municipalities don't even know the extent of what's hiding in sewage biosolids, but continue to encourage farmers to use it. Here's everything you need to know about biosolids and why farmers are still allowed to use it.
Biosolids is a universal term for solid waste or sludge derived from sewage treatment processes. Wastewater treatment plants first process the incoming contents by separating water from solid waste. Water is treated for biological contamination and sent back into nearby waterways where it becomes available for a variety of uses, including drinking water. What’s left behind is a sludge-mixture of human waste, industrial waste, and pollution from stormwater runoff. The leftover sludge or “biosolids” is much more difficult to treat, store, or dispose of. The nutrient-rich sludge becomes available for farms to purchase and use on croplands at a much cheaper rate than other types of manure. Surprisingly, the issue is not that human fecal matter is being used to fertilize crops across the country. The problem is that this sludge more often than not contains incredibly toxic chemicals that make their way into our food and drinking water.
EPA has documented that over 19 billion pounds of biosolid sludge has been used as fertilizer since 2016 in 41 states. The agency estimates that 60% of the nation's sludge is used to fertilize agricultural land, public parks, golf courses, and home gardens. Agricultural use of municipal biosolids has been around since the 1920’s - however environmental regulations didn’t kick in until 1993. There’s a strong case to be made that biosolids can be a cheap and effective way to fertilize crops - not to mention that farmers are able to reuse a naturally-occurring material to grow crops. Biosolids can also result in an increase in overall crop yield because of the addition of organic matter to soil. There’s a good chance that some of the food sitting in your refrigerator was grown using sewage biosolids.
PFAS or ‘forever chemicals’ are being detected everywhere - including in biosolids. Treatment plants aren’t required to test for or remove PFAS chemicals, so most of the time no one knows if they’re present. PFAS are found in industrial waste, drinking water, runoff from airports and military bases, as well as consumer goods. When these different types of waste are brought to a single area (i.e. a wastewater treatment plant), PFAS concentrations become alarmingly high. Because of the lack of testing and regulatory oversight, farmers are unknowingly re-distributing PFAS-containing toxic sludge into the environment while simultaneously contaminating their crops.
The EPA has detected 700 pollutants in sewage biosolids since testing began in 1993. In addition, the EPA has compiled of a list of 726 chemicals found in biosolids published in the National Sewage Sludge Surveys. However, the more than 9,000 different PFAS chemicals are not included in this list. Just because a pollutant is present does not mean that a wastewater treatment plant is required to remove it. Furthermore, EPA claims that “the presence of a pollutant in biosolids alone does not mean that the biosolids pose harm to human health and the environment.”
Biosolids, like other wastewater byproducts, are not particularly well-regulated. The “preparer,” which is often the public treatment plant, has to meet risk-based standards before providing the waste to the “appliers,” which are often farmers. It’s up to EPA to determine which pollutants in biosolids pose a risk to human health. EPA’s failure to regulate PFAS in biosolids and drinking water implies to the public that these chemicals are “safe,” even at concentrations that are known to cause cancer. EPA weighs the cost of removing a contaminant with the benefits to human health, resulting in safety limits that fail to do their jobs.
Farmers in Unity, Maine were some of the first to uncover PFAS pollution from biosolids on their land. A nearby town was home to a “molded fiber packaging” manufacturer in the 1990’s, which processed PFAS chemicals. The previous owners of the farm applied sewage biosolids to their land around the time that fiber manufacturing was in full swing. The current owners had no idea until they found a map of known sewage applications which revealed that their land had been contaminated. Testing found that PFAS levels in the farm's well water were 400 times higher than Maine’s state guidelines.
Similar stories are being told across the entire country - disrupting businesses, supply chains and public health; a Michigan cattle farmer was recently shut down after state officials detected PFAS in his water. The source was later traced back to fertilizer biosolids from a chrome-plate manufacturer in the area; Dairy farmers in both Maine and Wisconsin have dumped thousands of gallons of milk because of PFAS pollution in their cows; and companies in Ohio, the state with the most robust recordkeeping of biosolid use, have persistently violated EPA’s biosolid regulations.
It’s now estimated that 20 million acres of U.S. cropland are contaminated with PFAS chemicals. EPA has yet to start navigating the culpability of PFAS producers, wastewater treatment plants, or municipalities in a meaningful way. We can expect to see “biosolids” to dominate headlines in coming months, but we could be decades away from meaningful action to protect public health. Our Water Nerds will continue to ask the question: who should be held accountable?
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:Much like changing a car’s oil is necessary for a car to operate, replacing the cartridge in your Hydroviv water filter is necessary to ensure that your filter is producing safe drinking water for you and your family. This article discusses the most frequently asked questions that we get about cartridge replacement.
The performance of a water filter cartridge against dissolved and particulate contaminants is dictated by two main factors: #1. pore structure and #2. active media blend. A water filter must be changed regularly because as water flows through the filter over time, the pore structure can become clogged with particulate matter and active media becomes saturated with chemicals. When the capacity of either is exceeded, the filter no longer performs as designed.
While it’s easy to tell if particulate matter has filled up the filter’s pores (flow rate slows down), it’s not as straightforward to tell if a filter has been saturated by dissolved chemicals without laboratory testing. This is where 3rd party testing & certifications come in. For example, as part of Hydroviv’s NSF Certification Program, our drinking water cartridges were shown to filter chemicals like PFAS, lead, and VOCs for over 720 gallons before performance tapered, which translates to a 6 month replacement interval for over 95% of Hydroviv customers.
When a filter is used beyond the capacity, filtration performance drops and can reach a point where the filter can release contaminants into the water, a process known as “avalanching.” This is why we tell people that if they decide not to replace the cartridge, they are better off disconnecting their filtration system.
While over 95% of Hydroviv users are best served by a 6 month replacement interval, we do have users that use a longer or shorter changeout interval. For example, a filter used by a large family that drinks a lot of water or has a high amount of particulate matter could require more frequent cartridge replacements. Conversely, an occasionally-used filter can probably be changed out less frequently, though we don’t ever recommend letting any filter be used for over 9 months for hygiene reasons.
This video shows how easy it is to replace the cartridge in your Hydroviv filter.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:Whenever we pour something down the drain or flush the toilet, it’s easy to think “out of sight out of mind.” However, the things we put down the drain can impact water quality in a big way. This article highlights exactly what not to pour or flush down the drain.
All of the water flushed or washed down the drain goes through your city’s sewer system and into the wastewater treatment facility. The water that’s used to flush your toilet, take a shower, or wash your dishes all end up in the exact same spot. The wastewater treatment facility will treat the used water for a variety of pollutants. Once the water goes through the various processes, it’s released into local waterways to be recycled for a number of different purposes (including drinking water!).
It’s easy to assume that a wastewater treatment plant might remove absolutely everything from incoming wastewater. That isn’t entirely the case. Wastewater treatment plants do a really good job at removing larger solids, biological/bacterial contaminants, and sediment. They do not remove many chemicals, pharmaceuticals, hazardous materials, industrial waste, or pesticides. This puts a lot of pressure on drinking water treatment plants to carry a majority of the tap water purification. Some wastewater treatment plants are outdated and aren’t able to remove these types of pollutants, while others are not even required to do so. Click here for an in-depth video on how wastewater treatment plants actually work.
To help ease the burden on wastewater and drinking water treatment plants, here’s a list of things you should never pour or flush down the drain:
Pharmaceuticals: Old or unwanted prescription/over-the-counter medications should never be flushed down the toilet or sink. Water treatment plants are unable to remove most pharmaceuticals, which means that trace amounts end up in our tap water. Small amounts or levels below therapeutic doses are currently not a cause for concern but if people continue to dispose of medications down the drain, these levels of pharmaceuticals may accumulate. For guidance on how to properly dispose of pharmaceuticals, check out the FDA’s best practices for disposal of unused medicines.
Grease: Aside from the obvious reasons why you should never pour grease, oils, or fats down the drain, doing so can actually cause issues at a much larger scale. Whatever grease you pour down the drain congeals with everyone else's, and can form a mass in the sewer system. The mass can block other wastes from passing through, creating a major sewage blockage (like we saw in Detroit, MI). Check your city’s municipal utility company to see if they have a cooking oil collection program. If not, the best recommendation is to collect the used oil in a leakproof jar, seal it up, and throw it away in the trash.
Motor Oil: Never pour used motor oil or other automotive fluids (including antifreeze, solvents and gasoline) down a drain in your house or garage, into a storm drain, onto the soil, into a waterway, or in a manhole on a sidewalk. Used motor oil can contain toxic heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and cadmium that can contaminate drinking water. In fact, one quart of oil poured down a storm drain can contaminate one million gallons of water. One pint of oil can produce a slick of approximately one acre of water. When oil enters a body of water, a film develops on the surface that blocks out sunlight that plants and other organisms need to live. Please note that unlike cooking oil, you also cannot dispose of motor oil in the trash, and many cities will issue stiff fines for dumping toxic waste into landfills. Always bring used motor oil to local used oil collection centers.
Paint: Whether it’s latex, acrylic, or oil, paints can clog your pipes and potentially leach toxic compounds into the water. If you can, first try to see if the leftover paint can be reused. School drama clubs or community theaters will often be happy to take unused paint! If the paint can’t be reused and must be disposed of, avoid throwing it away. Bring paint to local household hazardous waste collection locations/events. Don’t clean brushes in the sink, but use rinse buckets, and let the paint residue settle overnight from the old rinse water before pouring the water down the sink, leaving the congealed and dried paint at the bottom of the bucket, where it can be peeled or scraped off and thrown away.
Wastewater treatment plants are primarily designed to treat the biological materials in the water, but are NOT equipped to treat the water for chemicals such as pharmaceuticals, cooking oil, household grease, motor oil and other automotive fluids, paint, photographic chemicals and others. A good rule of thumb is, when in doubt, don’t pour it down the sink or into sewer or storm drains. Check with your local authorities for toxic waste disposal locations.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:False. TDS probes only detect the charged mineral content of water, but can not detect pollutants. People are under the impression that a TDS/ppm measurement of “000” means that their water is completely free from contaminants. The reality is that TDS probes do a great job detecting charged atoms, but unfortunately things like motor oil, PFAS, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and gasoline are uncharged. While we wish that a $10 tool existed to tell us the contents of our water and if it’s safe to drink, that's not the case.
Several water filtration companies market their products on the basis of reducing TDS, and imply that a TDS above 000 is a bad thing. TDS often indicates the presence of minerals like calcium and magnesium in water, which are crucial for everyday bodily functions. In short, TDS are the least of your concerns when it comes to tap water pollutants.
False. It might seem like a time-saving measure, but it can cause negative health outcomes. Lead, which is commonly found in pipes, is more soluble in hot water than cold water. Hot water makes it easier for lead to leach from pipes and enter the water coming out of your faucet.
Hot water tanks are notoriously filthy places, and can act as an incubator for bacterial growth. Most people affected by Legionnaires Disease in the U.S. are exposed to the bacteria from their hot water tank. In short, drinking and cooking with water from the hot side of your faucet is not worth the potential for negative health outcomes.
Partially true. Boiling your water can in fact remove biological or bacterial contaminants that might be present. This is why water utilities will issue “boil water advisories” after a water main break or a problem with the disinfection system. Unless you get your water from a private well that has known problems with biological contaminants, there’s no need to boil your water on a daily basis. However, boiling your water does not remove contaminants like Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, Chromium 6, or PFAS. These contaminants fall under a different category and are much more difficult to remove. If you’re looking to remove PFAS, lead or other metals from your drinking water, boiling it will unfortunately not do the trick.
Not necessarily. If you’re looking for an alternative to tap water with rigorous monitoring standards, strict regulations, and transparency, bottled water is not the solution for you. Here’s why: Federal standards for tap water and bottled water are almost identical. Both have to meet monitoring requirements that were set in the 90’s, and have yet to be updated. FDA regulations have an allowable level of lead in bottled water of 5 parts per billion, even though EPA, CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health organizations have all acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead for children.
Also:
25 - 45% of bottled water comes from municipal sources, meaning it's just bottled tap water.
Plastic bottles can leach BPA & other chemicals.
Plastic water bottles are one of the largest sources of non-renewable plastic waste in the world.
Bottled water can be a great temporary tool if your community is in the middle of widespread tap water contamination, but it’s not the long term solution to drinking water problems.
False. The Red Dye Test is a visual demonstration used by water filter companies to show “filtration performance.” Water with red food coloring (meant to represent contaminants) is passed through a filter. The implication is that if the water is clear when it comes out the other end, then the filter also removes every other contaminant that could be present. Unfortunately this isn’t the case and red dye is not a “proxy” or “surrogate” for dangerous contaminants. The Red Dye Test only shows a filter's ability to capture large, simplistic, and easy-to-remove red dye molecules from water, and is not an accredited scientific test method. Identifying a representative proxy/surrogate requires that a credible testing body (e.g NSF/ANSI) has actually done experiments to validate it.
False. The water ionizers on the market claim to create alkaline water through electrolysis. The idea is that water is split to form hydrogen and oxygen by an electric current, so that water near the anode is acidic and water near the cathode is alkaline. The idea is that you can then siphon off acidic or alkaline water using a tube next to the cathode or anode.
Here's the problem: That's not really what's happening. Pure water or water with relatively low mineral content conducts electricity very poorly, so it can't undergo electrolysis to any significant extent.
Also:
There’s no scientific evidence that water with a higher pH can provide health benefits.
Your stomach acid will neutralize the pH before it enters the bloodstream.
Since this article was first written, we've continued getting inquiries about endocrine disruptors and methylated mercury, and more recently, lead and PFAS contamination, and how people become exposed to these chemicals. Different routes of contamination include not only drinking water, but also through food, so we wanted to spend some time explaining how this happens.
Bioaccumulation refers to the process of toxic chemicals building up inside of an organism’s body. This happens when a chemical is consumed or absorbed, and the body cannot catabolize or excrete it quickly enough. A contaminant will bioaccumulate inside the body if the rate of intake of the contaminant exceeds the rate it is excreted. Mercury is a well-known chemical that can bioaccumulate in humans. We commonly hear about mercury exposure resulting from eating fish such as tuna (or other large predatory fish). However, mercury as well as many other harmful chemicals can also be found in drinking water supplies across the United States.
Chemicals that tend to bioaccumulate are stored in cells and not exposed to direct physical or biochemical degradation. These chemicals can collect and hide-out, particularly within adipose tissue (fat cells). Fatty mammary tissue often contains the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals. These chemicals in our mammary tissue are then passed along to infants when nursing.
Biomagnification refers to the process of toxic chemicals increasing in concentration as they move throughout a food chain. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification often work hand-in-hand; one animal accumulates chemicals in the body (bioaccumulation) and then a larger predator consumes that smaller animal such that the chemical is passed along to the predator. The chemical “magnifies” as the resulting concentrations increase in the predator because it likely consumes large quantities of that particular prey throughout its lifetime (biomagnification). As top-level predators in our own food chain, humans tend to collect high concentrations of toxic chemicals in our bodies.
Lead is a particularly toxic contaminant because it is able to persist and bioaccumulate in the body. In humans, the principal organs affected are the central and peripheral nervous system and the cardiovascular (brain and nerves), gastrointestinal (GI tract), renal (kidneys), endocrine (hormone secretion), immune, and hematological (blood) systems. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other health organizations have determined that there is no safe level of human lead exposure, and children are especially vulnerable to exposure to and bioaccumulation of lead.
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of chemicals widely used in a variety of applications, including firefighting foam, nonstick coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, and even food packaging and cosmetics. While different forms of PFAS have been in use since the 1950s, relevant studies of its effects on humans did not occur until decades later. In 2013, scientists in Spain published the first paper analyzing the accumulation of different PFASs in samples of various human tissues. They discovered that PFHxA accumulated in highest concentrations in brain and liver, while PFBA levels were highest in kidney and lung, and PFOA was the predominant compound in bone, and finally PFOS accumulated primarily in lung, liver and kidney. The CDC has reported that PFAS has been found in the blood of 97% of Americans.
PBTs are a particular group of chemicals that threaten the health of humans and the environment. Examples include methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and dioxins. PBTs are considered extremely dangerous to both humans and wildlife because they remain in the environment for a very long time without breaking down, then bioaccumulate and biomagnify in ecosystems (including ours).
PBTs can also travel long distances and move between air, water, and land. DDT, a notorious environmental pollutant, was developed as a synthetic insecticide in the 1940s. Sprayed over crops, DDT would then wash into water supplies and contaminate lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, and oceans. Small organisms such as plankton and algae absorb DDT through the water. Smaller fish then consume the contaminated algae and plankton. Larger predatory fish then consume the smaller fish. Eventually, large predatory birds or humans eat the contaminated fish.
Despite being banned in the United States over 40 years ago, DDT is still found in soil and water supplies today. In addition, humans contain the highest concentrations of DDT when compared to other organisms.
Exposure to PBTs has been linked to a wide range of toxic effects in humans and wildlife. Some of those adverse effects include but are not limited to disruption of the nervous and endocrine systems, reproductive and developmental problems, immune system suppression, and cancer.
Do you keep finding pinky slimy stuff in your shower, bathtub, tile, or sink no matter how often you clean your bathroom? The culprit is likely a type of bacteria called Serratia marcescens. Serratia marcescens can be found just about anywhere - including soil or water, and is also carried by air. These bacterial colonies feed off of mineral deposits in soap scum from shampoo and soap residue in showers and bathtubs.
Serratia marcescens is not known to cause waterborne diseases. For most healthy people, Serratia marcescens is not harmful if you brush up against the biofilm in a shower or tub. It can cause ailments such as urinary tract or bladder infections if it enters the body through the eyes or open wounds. More serious issues, including pneumonia, have occurred in people with compromised immune systems and in hospitals. Serratia marcescens is generally just an eyesore and unpleasant to touch.
Other Articles You Might Enjoy:
Here's Why You Shouldn't Drink Hot Water From Your Faucet
What Does The Red Dye Test Actually Measure?
5 Things You Need to Know About Bottled Water
A common question our Water Nerds get asked is if it’s safe to drink or cook with hot water from their faucets. People often choose to use hot water to speed up the boiling process when making pasta, tea, etc. However, the time saved is not worth the potential of health outcomes that can come from doing so. Here’s why you should stick to using cold water for drinking and cooking.
Lead and zinc (commonly found in water pipes) are more soluble in hot water than in cold water. So when you run hot water through the pipes, lead and zinc are much more likely to leach into the water coming out of the faucet. If you live in a house built before 1986, when lead pipes were banned, you definitely want to avoid drinking tap water from your hot water line. Also, boiling water doesn’t remove chemical or metal contaminants, like it does for biological contamination.
Hot water tanks can act as biological incubators and grow bacteria. Legionella, which is the bacteria that causes Legionnaires Disease, thrives in warm water environments and is commonly found in hot water heaters. There are an estimated 22,000 cases of Legionnaires Disease reported every year in the U.S. The hot water heater can also collect all sorts of residue buildup and gunk. You really don’t want any of that in the water you’re ingesting.
CDC: “Drink or cook only with water that comes out of the cold tap. Water that comes out of the warm or hot tap can have higher levels of lead. Boiling this water will not reduce the amount of lead in your water.”
EPA: “USE ONLY COLD WATER FOR COOKING AND DRINKING. Do not cook with, or drink water from the hot water tap. Hot water can dissolve lead more quickly than cold water. If you need hot water, draw water from the cold tap and then heat it."
Professional Chefs & Food Writers: “There is…a good reason to use cold water instead of hot for cooking: hot water will contain more dissolved minerals from your pipes, which can give your food an off-flavor, particularly if you reduce the water a lot.”
Other Articles We Think You’ll Enjoy:Eric Roy, PhD & Analies Dyjak, M.A.
The Red Dye Test is a visual demonstration used in marketing materials by various water filtration companies. In this demonstration, red food coloring is added to water and passed through a filter, where it comes out clear. Oftentimes this demonstration is done in a “side by side” manner against another water filter that does not remove the red coloring from the water. This demonstration suggests to the consumer that:If a water filter can remove red dye, it’s also removing dangerous contaminants. In scientific terms, they’re suggesting that red dye is a “proxy” or “surrogate” for dangerous contaminants.
Water filters that do not remove the red color are not as effective as water filters that do remove red food coloring.
Absolutely not. Identifying a representative proxy/surrogate requires that a credible testing body (e.g NSF/ANSI) has actually done experiments to validate it. An example of a representative surrogate test is NSF/ANSI Standard 53 for VOCs, where the certifying bodies have shown (through testing) that chloroform is an effective surrogate for roughly 50 VOCs. No such testing has been done (or to our knowledge attempted) for red food coloring. It goes without saying, if the visual removal of red food coloring was a representative surrogate for water filter performance, credible water filter companies would not be spending millions of dollars on research, development, testing, and evaluation.
Absolutely not. For example, one of the brands that prominently markets using the red dye test was part of a water filter evaluation study conducted by Duke and NC State University, and failed miserably. Conversely, various products that do not remove red food coloring (Hydroviv’s included) were effective in filtering “hard-to-filter” PFAS from the challenge solutions. So while the brand effectively removes food-safe red dye, it isn’t able to remove PFAS. In fact, higher levels of PFAS were detected in the filtered water because the filtration media was likely oversaturated. In short, red dye is extremely easy to remove and is not an actual indication of filter performance or contaminant removal.
While we wish there was an at-home test that could determine if your filter is doing its job, that unfortunately isn’t the case. Every home in America would test their water on a regular basis if at-home test kits provided actual information about water quality. If you want to test for contaminants, you’ll need to send a water sample to an accredited laboratory and test for a range of contaminants. This can cost thousands of dollars and doesn’t provide immediate results. The best way to ensure that you’re using an effective product is to buy products from companies that use third party testing & certifications.
The red dye test tells us almost nothing about filtration performance and shouldn’t be used as a proxy/surrogate for harmful contaminants.
Other Articles Recommended For You:Recent spills of plastic pellets called “nurdles” are shining a new light on microplastic pollution in the environment. Microplastics are found in the air, drinking water, food and consumer products. According to a recent study conducted for the World Wildlife Fund by the University of Newcastle in Australia, the average human is consuming the equivalent of 5 grams of plastic every week, which is approximately the equivalent of a credit card. Scientists have been studying health effects of microplastics on humans, but there’s much that is unknown and uncertain. Some of the things we can do to protect ourselves and the environment include minimizing our use of single-use plastics, and reducing our ingestion of microplastics by using an effective water filter.
Microplastics is a general term used to describe plastic particles 5 mm and smaller. Microplastics can come from sources as varied as rubberized plastic from car tires, synthetic fibers shed from fabric, and single use plastic waste broken down into smaller pieces. A more recently recognized source is pre-production plastic beads commonly called “nurdles.” Microplastics in the form of microbeads were used in cosmetics until 2015, when they were banned under the Obama Administration.
The term “microplastics” is such a broad term that it can be misleading because of the huge diversity of sizes and chemical makeup of the plastics that are found throughout the environment. The World Health Organization says that there is no scientifically-agreed definition of microplastics, as the size definition has limited value, especially with drinking-water, since particles at the upper end of the size range (closer to 5 mm) are unlikely to be found in treated drinking-water. A subset of microplastics <1 µm in length are often referred to as nanoplastics.
Textiles are the largest source of microplastic pollution - specifically microfibers that shed from fabrics when washed repeatedly. Tire dust particles formed from car tire abrasion on road are also a large contributor to microplastic pollution in the environment. Microparticles have been found in oceans, lakes, and rivers, due to runoff and other forms of pollution. Single use plastics are another huge source of plastic pollution throughout the world. Single use plastics do not fully decompose, but break down into smaller and smaller particles, forming microplastics.
A recent article highlights another type of microplastic commonly known as “nurdles,” which is considered to be one of the top three sources of microplastic pollution in the oceans. These lentil-sized pre-production plastic pellets are the building blocks of plastic products. The nurdles are made with many different types of plastics. These plastics can have different densities so may either float or sink, depending on whether it’s in freshwater or salt water. This unfortunately can result in a very range of nurdle contamination areas. Nurdles most disastrously enter the environment when cargo ships carrying these pellets spill their cargo into the ocean.
Microplastics have been discovered in locations as deep as the Mariana Trench, as high up as the Swiss Alps, in Arctic snow and in Antarctic wildlife, in surface water and groundwater Microplastics are found in the air, rain, and even products designed for human consumption including including beer, table salt, a large percentage of seafood, especially shellfish, such as shrimp, oysters, and mussels. Microplastics have also been found in 90% of bottled water.
People are exposed to microplastics through inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact due to their presence in food, water, air, and consumer products. Microplastics are in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. According to a recent study conducted for the World Wildlife Fund by the University of Newcastle in Australia, the average human is consuming the equivalent of 5 grams of plastic every week, which is approximately the equivalent of a credit card. According to this study, the largest source of plastic ingestion worldwide is through drinking water. The second source of plastic ingestion is from shellfish - specifically: oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops, which are eaten whole after they have lived in water contaminated with microplastics their entire lives.
A comprehensive study released earlier this year reviewed the effects of microplastics in humans. Studies reviewed in this research have suggested that microplastics exposure is implicated in a variety of health issues, including altering metabolism and cellular function, disrupting immunity and inflammatory response, neurotoxicity, and an increased risk of cancer. Laboratory studies just released last month have also detected microplastics in both human blood and in lung tissue. Additional research has demonstrated that there are concerns of not just the chemicals that make up microplastics, but also with the contaminants that are adsorbed onto their surface, especially as there is an amplification of the toxic effects, known as "augmented joint toxicity."
Ingesting microplastics is also of concern. Consuming shellfish and other marine organisms that are eaten whole (with GI tracts intact), such as mussels, scallops, clams, and oysters, may be a major route of microplastics ingestion, as these organisms accumulate and retain microplastics. The toxicity from consuming the shellfish contaminated with microplastics is most likely dependent on size of the animal, chemicals that it’s been exposed to, and the concentration of toxins present. However, many concerns regarding microplastics in humans continue to remain uncertain. As long as the fish and shellfish are properly cleaned, and the stomach/intestines of the creatures are not consumed, current knowledge suggests that the risk to humans through this potential exposure route may be minimal.
There is significant concern that the large (and growing) amounts of microplastics in the environment may be adversely affecting wildlife, especially in the oceans. Evidence shows that microplastics are getting ingested by sea creatures, both by mistaking plastic pieces for food, and also through biomagnification and bioamplification effects, where the plastics and contaminants on the surfaces of the particles increasingly accumulate in the bodies of larger and larger animals as they consume smaller animals that contain microplastics.
Sea life of all sizes are being adversely affected by inadvertently consuming microplastics, from starvation and malnutrition because the microplastics aren’t digested, and remain in their digestive systems, preventing them from consuming actual food. Many sea creatures in the wild are suffering from malnutrition or die from starvation. In addition, issues with reproduction, with studies demonstrating that eggs and larvae exposed to higher levels of microplastics had a lower hatching and viability rate, which can affect survival of the species.
Spilled nurdles, in particular, have severely affected coastlines and wildlife when they wash up to shore. These pellets are mistaken for food by the wildlife, including birds and fish. In addition, they can break apart, creating much smaller nanoparticles. Nurdles are highly persistent, and can even be considered a type of “forever contaminant,” circulating in ocean currents and washing up on shores for decades. Even more concerning, the plastic pellets have a water repelling surface, which makes them ideally suited to attract many toxic pollutants like a sponge. As a result, scientists say that the nurdle pellets can have a much, much higher concentration of contaminants on the pellet surface than in the water, potentially up to a million times more toxic. In these amounts, bioaccumulation and biomagnification of the toxic pollutants and microplastics is occurring, and may reach levels hazardous to the wildlife and ecology. The full ramifications of microplastic contamination, however, are not yet known and may not be for many years.
Scientists around the world are working hard to study the different issues and effects of microplastics. As always, we advocate listening to the science and following guidance based on the data. In the meantime, there are helpful things we can all do to help reduce the pollution in the environment and to protect ourselves and our families:
Reduce your usage of single-use plastics, such as bottled water and plastic containers. Use reusable bottles for drinking water, as well as reusable food containers instead of single-use styrofoam, plastic containers, plastic bags, or wrap.
Use a filter with a rated pore size small enough to remove most microplastics from water. Granulated carbon filters do not do this, but carbon block filters with a rated pore size (such as 0.2 micron) can effectively exclude most microparticles from your water.
Clean seafood thoroughly before cooking, especially being sure to remove the mud veins in shrimp. Because scallops, oysters, and mussels have been found to contain the highest microplastic amounts among seafood, eating less of these types of seafood may be advisable as well.
Avoid beauty and consumer products that use microbeads, to minimize the effects of microplastics and dermal exposure.
Use less plastic overall, by choosing more sustainable and environmentally friendly materials. For example, use paper tape instead of plastic tape for sealing boxes, and choose environmentally friendly packaging materials (such as compostable, biodegradable, or dissolvable foam packaging), and wear natural fibers -- non-synthetic clothing fabrics such as cotton or bamboo to help reduce the amount of synthetic microfibers entering the water systems from washing and drying the fabric.
The city of Eau Claire, Wisconsin is in the national spotlight for PFAS contamination in drinking water. The city’s water utility provider shut down half of it's wells due to unsafe levels of PFAS earlier this month. PFAS are a category of harmful contaminants that are known to cause cancer and other dangerous health impacts.
PFAS pollution has contaminated half of the 16 drinking water wells in the city of Eau Claire. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) believes that the contamination originated from the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport in Eau Claire. Airports and military bases are known to be a main source of PFAS contamination due to the excessive use of firefighting foam during training activities. PFAS are a key ingredient in firefighting foam because of their ability to act as a surfactant and suppress fire. You might see PFAS referred to as Aqueous Fire Fighting Foam or AFFF in this particular context. Camp Lejeune, McClellan Air Force Base, Pease Air Force Base, and Gerald R. Ford International Airport are some of the more well known incidences of AFFF contamination. There are however several other sources of PFAS that could be contributing to the contamination, including nearby PFAS manufacturing and processing facilities.
One of the most difficult hurdles faced by municipalities across the country is what to do with the PFAS once its contaminated a water supply. The Utilities Manager for the City of Eau Claire stated that they’re currently emptying out their wells and dumping contaminated water into “absorption ponds.” These ponds are a temporary solution and are problematic in their own way. PFAS can still seep from the absorption ponds into surrounding soil and groundwater. The utilities manager said in a recent interview that the absorption ponds are located in an area that “should not impact municipal drinking water.” The absorption ponds also don’t take into consideration the health of aquatic species and other organisms in that habitat. PFAS are known to bioaccumulate in fish, which could indirectly affect humans throughout the food chain.
City officials made the decision not to provide bottled water to its residents, and continue to allow them to drink the contaminated water on the grounds that it’s “under the DNR hazard index level” of 20 parts per trillion. Proactive sampling occurred in 2020, which found that Eau Claire wells had detectable levels of PFAS. In 2021 when the hazard index was introduced in the state of Wisconsin, the utility department determined that PFAS were then problematic.
There are currently no mitigation plans and several unknowns regarding the next steps for the city of Eau Claire. State and local officials are still unsure of the size of the plume, the direction of the plume, and the levels that they are dealing with. The City of Eau Claire has hired an engineering firm to assist with answering some of these questions as well as a cost estimate for future action. The utilities manager did however say that since removing PFAS-contaminated water, PFAS levels had decreased in 5 of the city wells.
Once PFAS are in a water supply it’s nearly impossible to eliminate all of the contamination. Water treatment plants will simply focus on water that’s actually being consumed by members of a community, which includes purchasing proper filtration technologies. It’s important to note that Eau Claire is not the only municipality that has taken water sources “offline” due to PFAS contamination. The community of Bethany Crest, Delaware was told to only use bottled water for drinking and cooking due to “concerning levels” or PFAS. Many municipalities are testing for PFAS for the very first time, so there’s no way of knowing how long PFAS has been a problem in either of these communities.
The utilities manager in an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio stated that “the city of Eau Claire’s water is safe and always has been.” We’ve seen similar statements from public officials in other states when their water was in fact not safe at all. The mayor of Newark, NJ made a similar statement about lead levels that were almost two times higher than the federal limit, claiming that Newark’s water was not only safe, but “some of the best in New Jersey.” We suggest first taking a look at this Environmental Working Group (EWG) map to see if PFAS have been detected in your area. You may also consider purchasing a filter that removes PFAS contaminants.
Other Articles We Think You Would Enjoy:The State of New Jersey recently become one of a handful of states to implement testing requirements and water quality standards for 3 different types of PFAS. PFAS or Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, are a federally unregulated contaminant known to cause adverse health effects, including cancer. These new requirements have forced municipalities to take a closer look at the safety of their drinking water. This article addresses what PFAS chemicals are, the "safe" levels in New Jersey drinking water, and water filtration brands that actually remove them.
New Jersey was one of the first states to adopt drinking water standards for PFAS chemicals in June 2020. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection announced a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 14 parts per trillion for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 13 parts per trillion for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in New Jersey’s drinking water. The Department previously established an MCL of 13 parts per trillion for another PFAS, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), on September 4, 2018. PFAS are considered "emerging contaminants" and have been detected in drinking water systems across the country, but still remain unregulated by the EPA.
As of July 2021, four New Jersey towns and a water supplier filed lawsuits against 3M, DuPont, and other manufacturers of PFAS for knowingly contaminating drinking water sources. These include the City of Camden and Township of Point Pleasant, who have filed suit in Federal Court in South Carolina, and the Borough of Hopatcong, Township of Pequannock, and the Middlesex Water Company who are suing in federal court in New Jersey, to cover costs of removing PFAS from the public water systems in order to comply with the new state regulations.
Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a category of harmful compounds that can be found in drinking water sources across the country. PFAS can take hundreds of years to degrade in the environment which is why you may see them referred to as ‘forever chemicals.’ PFAS are not currently regulated at the federal level, but some states have created regulations or monitoring criteria, including New Jersey. PFAS are known to increase the risk of cancer, increase cholesterol, increase the risk of miscarriage by 80-120%, and several other negative health outcomes. According to the National Institutes of Health, over 4,700 different PFAS variations have been used in some type of manufacturing since the 1950’s.
There’s a bit of uncertainty around the “safe level” of exposure to PFAS compounds. There are only a handful of studies that assess associated health impacts, and most agree that more research is necessary to make a determination. In 2016, EPA set a non-enforceable Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion for combined PFOA and PFOS. More recent data suggests that this level is far too high to provide meaningful protection against a range of negative health impacts. A different study found that a “safe level” or PFAS could be as low as 0.1 parts per trillion. Although the New Jersey PFAS standard is on the low end of state limits, our team would rather see even less PFAS allowed in municipal tap water.
If you live in New Jersey and you’re looking for a solution, it’s important to understand that not all water filters are able to remove PFAS chemicals. Duke University completed a study in 2020 that tested various filtration brands and their ability to remove PFAS from drinking water. The results found that popular brands including Brita and Pur did not do a good job of removing PFAS compounds. Refrigerator filters tested by the Duke research team, including; Samsung, Whirlpool, and GE, also failed to remove PFAS. The full results of this study can be found here. Hydroviv filters are both NSF certified and third-party tested to remove PFAS chemicals. To request our full testing and removal data, please email hello@hydroviv.com.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
Are PFAS Toxic to the Immune System?
Yale: PFAS Increase The Risk of Miscarriage by 80-120%
Federal PFAS Roadmap and National Strategy
Last Week Tonight Television Host John Oliver did a recent segment on his show about PFAS contamination, prompting a new wave of interest. A study by the Environmental Working Group estimates that more than 200 Million Americans have PFAS in their drinking water and a 2019 study by the CDC indicated that 97% of Americans have PFAS in their blood. This article highlight the known health effects of PFAS chemicals in humans.
Scientists at the University of Cincinnati analyzed studies that focused on a particular type of PFAS chemical (PFOS) and how exposure can impact male reproductive health. The researchers observed that PFAS are endocrine disruptors and can harm the reproductive system. More specifically, they observed that studies conducted in vitro and in rats showed decreased testosterone levels when exposed to PFAS.
A Yale University PFAS study evaluated prenatal exposure to seven different PFAS variations, and the risk of miscarriage. Researchers tested the more common types of PFAS typically found in drinking water; PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFNA, PFDA, and PFOSA. The study determined that the cohort of women with higher amounts of PFAS in their maternal plasma had an 80% to 120% increased risk of miscarriage than those with lower amounts of PFAS. The researchers listed drinking water, food packaging, indoor air, and "other" environmental exposures as the primary routes of ingestion/inhalation into the human body.
Preeclampsia is a dangerous condition for pregnant women - causing hypertension in the mother, elevated protein in the urine, and preterm labor. Scientists in Sweden studied a cohort of over 1700 pregnant women and observed the incidence of preeclampsia. Even after controlling their observations for other preexisting conditions as potential risk factors in pregnancy, they observed that there was a significant association between preeclampsia and serum concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, or PFNA. Even after adjusting for parity, age, body weight and smoke exposure, they still observed significant associations between occurrences of preeclampsia and serum levels of PFOS and PFNA.
Scientists in Sweden followed a cohort of 1533 pregnant mothers, and measured the levels of 8 different types of PFAS in their blood around the 10th week of pregnancy. 5 different types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOS, PFNA, PFDA, and PFUnDA) were linked to lower birth weights, lower birth weights for gestational age, and also babies that were considered small for gestational age (SGA). This occurred more frequently in baby girls than boys. In a just-published study, prenatal exposure to PFOA in a predominantly Hispanic cohort of mothers was also associated with lower birthweight in infants.
In a just-released controlled study from the University of Southern California and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, scientists measured PFAS levels from the blood samples of patients. Specifically, they found that PFOS levels were associated with a 4.5 times higher risk of developing liver cancer due to alterations in the metabolic pathways involved.
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute analyzed blood levels of 8 different types of PFAS compounds from 324 Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC; kidney cancer) patients. After controlling for age, demographics and other factors, they observed a statistically significant association between serum PFOA concentrations. They also observed that the association between PFOA and Renal Cell Carcinoma remained after adjusting for other PFAS varieties. The researchers indicated that their findings add substantially to the weight of evidence that PFOA is a renal carcinogen and may have important public health implications for the many individuals exposed to PFAS contaminants worldwide.
Professors at University of California, Irvine, conducted a comprehensive review of peer reviewed studies relating PFOA to incidences of kidney and testicular cancer. They concluded that, in spite of the small sample size, they observed an average relative increase in cancer risk per 10 ng/mL increase in serum PFOA of 16% for kidney cancer and 3% for testicular cancer.
Research from the C8 Health Study, followed over 69,000 patients from 6 water districts in two states experiencing water contamination from a DuPont Chemical Facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The researchers randomly selected 200 participants from the C8 Health Study, and measured serum levels of 4 PFAS compounds: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxs. They also measured specific biomarkers that indicate liver damage (hepatocyte apoptosis) as well as cytokine markers (indicating inflammation due to immune response). The data from their study support previous findings that suggest PFAS may cause liver injury while reducing some aspects of the immune response.
In a just-released study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, scientists did a comprehensive and systematic literature review of over 100 peer-reviewed studies in both rodents and humans involving PFAS and liver function. They used the serum enzyme alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as a marker to indicate liver injury. They discovered that higher ALT levels, which can indicate Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease were associated with exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA.
1,945 adults from Ronneby, Sweden were included in a PFAS study just last year. Ronneby is an area with PFAS contaminated drinking water due to heavy use of aqueous firefighting foam. The scientists measured serum lipid levels and compared them against serum PFAS levels as well as controlling for demographic information such as age, gender, and BMI, and also collected comparable data in a control area (drinking water not contaminated with PFAS). Specifically, the scientists measured serum levels of PFOS, PFHxS, and PFOA, and observed that drinking water contamination caused high serum levels of PFAS. They also observed that high total cholesterol levels and LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels correlated with high serum PFAS levels. In fact, they observed a 7–9% increase of total cholesterol and LDL in the PFAS contaminated area compared to the control area.
Scientists in Korea evaluated samples from 3,070 test subjects, whose blood samples were tested for 12 different types of PFAS and also against levels of the thyroid hormones TSH, T3, and T4. They observed that higher serum concentrations of PFAS was associated with abnormal thyroid hormone levels. Specifically, PFOA was associated with a decrease in total T4 and FT4 levels. PFOS was associated with a decrease in total T4 level and PFNA and PFDeA were associated with decreases in TSH levels.
Scientists in Norway studied adolescents and These subjects completed questionnaires about their health conditions, and then had their blood tested to measure serum levels of 18 different PFAS chemicals. There was a statistically significant association between several PFAS types and the occurrence of asthma, and also between PFOS and nickel allergy. However, allergic rhinitis, self-reported pollen allergy, food allergy and atopic eczema were not associated with PFAS concentrations.
Scientists at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health tested serum samples from 7,040 individuals 12 years and older for Vitamin D and PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA. Higher serum PFOS concentrations correlated with lower vitamin D biomarker concentrations, and the association was stronger among non-Hispanic white individuals. Higher serum PFOS concentrations were also associated with increased risk of being vitamin D deficient. In contrast, PFHxS was associated with higher vitamin D levels and lower odds of being vitamin D deficient.
Scientists in Sweden analyzed the data from over 60,000 people looking at the incidence of major bone fractures and compared these patients to PFAS exposure levels based on their water supplies. Their studies increased the evidence that PFAS exposure is harmful to bone density and may increase the incidence of osteoporosis.
In a new study, scientists did a comprehensive review of studies involving PFAS and diabetes in both adults and children. They concluded that there was evidence that PFAS exposure is associated with higher concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL), high density lipoprotein (HDL), and total cholesterol (TC), but not triglycerides (TG). Specifically, they saw a strong association between PFOA and elevated levels of LDL and TC, PFOS and TC, and PFNA and LDL.
A study published by the University of Michigan School of Public Health followed over 1200 women between 2000 - 2017 and controlled for demographic and health factors. None were diabetic when they entered the study. Serum PFAS levels were measured and compared to factors indicating diabetes on subsequent visits. After adjustment for race/ethnicity, site, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, total energy intake, physical activity, menopausal status and BMI, the results indicate that higher PFAS levels in the blood are associated with a higher risk of developing diabetes.
The University of Michigan School of Public Health recently published a study that followed 1,058 “midlife women” initially free of hypertension from the multiracial and multiethnic SWAN (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) with annual follow-up visits between 1999 and 2017.
A Harvard study in 2019 researched whether PFAS chemicals correlated to COVID-19 outcomes. The researchers studied 323 COVID patients, and tested blood samples for 5 different types of PFAS compounds.
They observed that:
There is currently no way to effectively or efficiently clear PFAS from the human body. Animal studies suggest that PFOA is mostly excreted in the urine, but scientists estimate that this may account for only 20% of the PFAS in humans. In addition, they estimate that half-life of PFOA elimination in humans (the amount of time for the person to have half as much PFOA as now--assuming no further exposure), is roughly estimated to be 3.5 years for PFOA and about 4.8 years for PFOS.
Scientists agree that the best thing to do to mitigate PFAS in the body is to minimize exposure. Using filters for drinking water that significantly reduces PFAS can go a long way to reducing an individual’s overall PFAS exposure.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Monday, October 18, that the agency will prioritize a comprehensive national strategy to confront PFAS pollution. The Biden-Harris administration campaigned on setting limits in tap water for PFAS and ensuring other actionable protection measures for public health. The PFAS “roadmap” also includes a summary of recent proposals and recommendations from EPA and Congress.
Timeline for nationwide enforceable drinking water limits for PFAS in tap water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Designating PFAS as a “hazardous substance” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. This designation will help hold polluters financially responsible for contaminating source water.
A timeline for Effluent Guideline Limitations for nine different industrial categories.
An assessment of shortcomings of the Toxic Substances Control Act and its ability to protect public health.
An increase in monitoring, data collection, and research.
A final toxicity assessment for GenX.
Technical foundation for PFAS air emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Hydroviv has been covering PFAS in drinking water since our company began in 2016. Since then, virtually no action has been taken by the EPA or Congress regarding this category of chemicals that is known to cause cancer. The press release for this latest roadmap even stated that the EPA has known about the toxic nature of PFAS chemicals for over 20 years. The impacts of PFAS have now extended across multiple generations, when in all likelihood, this could have been avoided.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:Governor Chris Sununu recently signed 3 bills to increase water protections in New Hampshire. Most significantly, HB 271 specifically addresses PFAS contamination in drinking water by establishing maximum contaminant levels (MCL’s) for four different types of PFAS. This article addresses what PFAS compounds are, the "safe" levels in New Hampshire drinking water, and water filtration brands that actually remove them.
New Hampshire is the latest in several states that are establishing drinking water standards for PFAS chemicals. Governor Sununu signed House Bill 271, which establishes maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for the following:
These contaminants have been detected in drinking water systems across the country, and have been detected in the drinking water of over 200 million Americans, but still remain unregulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In response to public concerns about PFAS contamination affecting water quality, in 2018 a bill was passed requiring the New Hampshire Department of Environment Services to conduct ongoing testing for PFAS at sites throughout the state. Their testing results are reported twice a year and were most recently made available in June 2021.
Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a category of harmful compounds that can be found in drinking water sources across the country. PFAS can take hundreds of years to degrade in the environment which is why you may see them referred to as ‘forever chemicals.’ PFAS are not currently regulated at the federal level, but some states have created regulations or monitoring criteria, including New York State. PFAS are known to increase the risk of cancer, increase cholesterol, increase the risk of miscarriage by 80-120%, and several other negative health outcomes. According to the National Institute of Health, over 4,700 different PFAS variations have been used in some type of manufacturing since the 1950’s.
There’s a bit of uncertainty around the “safe level” of exposure to PFAS compounds. There are only a handful of studies that assess the potential health impacts, and most agree that more research is necessary to make a determination. In 2016, EPA set a non-enforceable Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion for combined PFOA and PFOS. More recent data suggests that this level is far too high to provide meaningful protection against a range of negative health impacts. A recent study also found that a “safe level” or PFAS could be as low as 0.1 parts per trillion. Although the New Hampshire PFAS standard is on the lower end of state limits, our team would rather see even less PFAS allowed in municipal tap water.
If you live in New Hampshire and you’re looking for a solution, it’s important to understand that not all water filters are able to remove PFAS chemicals. Duke University completed a study in 2020 that tested various filtration brands and their ability to remove PFAS from drinking water. The results found that popular brands including Brita and Pur did not do a good job of removing PFAS compounds. Refrigerator filters tested by the Duke research team, including; Samsung, Whirlpool, and GE, also failed to remove PFAS. The full results of this study can be found here. Hydroviv filters are both NSF certified and third-party tested to remove PFAS chemicals. To request our full testing and removal data, please email hello@hydroviv.com.
Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently called on the Federal Government to assist a community in Michigan struggling with unsafe lead levels in drinking water. Benton Harbor is located on Lake Michigan and has violated the Safe Drinking Water Act on numerous occasions in the past 6 years. Benton Harbor and neighboring St. Joseph combine to form what locals call the “twin cities.” Both of these communities are almost identical in total area and population size, but differ tremendously when it comes to race, economics, and access to safe drinking water.
43% of families in Benton Harbor live below the poverty line, compared to only 6% of families in neighboring St. Joseph. Likewise, Benton Harbor is predominantly Black or African American (84.72%) and St. Joseph is predominantly White (83.87%). The median household income in Benton Harbor is $21,916, as compared to $62,374 in St. Joseph. These economic disparities impact everything from schools to housing to access to healthcare and to clean drinking water.
The highest level of lead detected in Benton Harbor was 440 parts per billion at the end of 2020. This is 29 times higher than the allowed level of lead in U.S. tap water, or what is referred to as the 15 part per billion Action Level (AL). The 90th percentile average of these samples were at or below 24 parts per billion, which is still well over the federal AL. For a bit of context, 90% of the samples in neighboring St. Joseph were 9 parts per billion - which is still higher than what’s recommended by most health agencies, but significantly lower than Benton Harbor’s lead levels. Officials in Benton Harbor also failed to test for PFAS, violating recent state-mandated testing requirements. PFAS are known to cause cancer, increased cholesterol, an increased risk of miscarriages, and other harmful health impacts.
Lead is a neurotoxin and can cause lifelong irreversible damages to brain development. Children don’t have a fully developed blood-brain barrier making it easier for certain unwanted substances to cross into the Central Nervous System. Perhaps the most alarming impact that lead can have on young children is that lead can be mistaken for calcium, which is vital for bone growth and development. When this occurs, the body absorbs lead as it would calcium in the brain, blood, bones, and soft tissue. Long term health impacts of childhood exposure to lead include delayed growth and development, learning and behavioral problems, lowered IQ, attention deficit, hearing and speech problems, and underperformance in schools. The American Academy of Pediatrics has determined that there is no safe level of lead for children, and that any amount of lead in the system could result in negative health outcomes.
The impacts of lead on these already disadvantaged children exacerbate the many issues that they face. They often begin school already behind their counterparts “across the bridge”, and when subjected to the dangerously high lead levels, are at much higher risk for developmental delays. It’s obvious that lead is an issue in both of these communities, and this has likely been the case for decades. The problem becomes much more apparent when race and income become the defining factors in two almost identical cities.
Hydroviv’s partnership with Little Miss Flint helps communities like Benton Harbor find immediate solutions. We’re able to donate our own NSF certified water filters to families who need them. Mari Copeny (commonly known as Little Miss Flint) helped to donate over one million bottles of water to families in Flint impacted by the 2014 water crisis. Hydroviv’s Scientific Founder, Dr. Eric Roy, started developing high-capacity lead removal filters to donate to child-centric organizations in Flint. This is where we met Mari and decided to form a partnership to address water quality issues together. So far we’ve donated hundreds of filters to communities in Wilmington, North Carolina, Memphis, Tennessee, Chicago, Illinois, and more. To learn more about our charitable efforts or to donate, click here.
Other Articles You May Be Interested In:
Lead Contamination in Flint, MI Drinking Water