Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

Editor's Note: This article was updated on 1/23/2018 to include the most recent lead test data.

Eric Roy, Ph.D.  |  Scientific Founder

With lead contamination in the national spotlight, we get asked a lot of questions about water quality in major US cities. Because Hydroviv optimizes filters for each city's water,we spend a lot of time looking at water quality data and regulatory disclosures, not media commentary. This article gives a quick look at the lead problem in Pittsburgh’s water, and also provides some practical advice for Pittsburgh residents so they can minimize their exposure to lead from tap water.

How Lead Enters Pittsburgh’s Tap Water

The lead crisis in Flint has brought nationwide attention to the fact that corrosive water can leach lead from lead-containing pipes, soldered joints, and plumbing fixtures. This means that if lead pipes are present in a city’s old infrastructure, the home’s plumbing predates 1986, or the fixtures predate 1998, there is an opportunity for lead contamination. Pittsburgh is an historic city with old infrastructure, so residents rely on municipal corrosion control measures to prevent contamination. Unfortunately for the residents of Pittsburgh, municipal corrosion control measures have not been able to keep lead from leaching from an aging infrastructure.

Lead In Pittsburgh’s Water Has Been Rising Since 2001 And Now Exceed The EPA Action Level

The concentration of lead from samples collected for regulatory purposes in Pittsburgh’s have been steadily climbing from 2001 to 2013. Despite nearly exceeding the EPA Action Level in 2013, and the clear decade-long upward trend, Pittsburgh did not report lead data again until 2016. Unexpectedly, lead concentrations jumped another 30% during this 3 year period of non-testing, and lead concentrations in Pittsburgh now exceed the EPA Action Level, with more than 17% of the samples collected as part of the regulatory testing coming in over the 15 part per billion (ppb) regulatory threshold. It's also important to point out that there is a difference between the regulatory limit and human toxicity, because US EPA acknowledges that the lead concentration where "there is no known or expected risk to health” is 0 ppb, not 15 ppb.

Update 1/23/2018: The most recent round of test data shows that lead levels continue to rise in Pittsburgh, and the 90th percentile concentration is now 21 ppb. Furthermore, more samples are coming in at much higher concentrations.

How Pittsburgh Residents Can Minimize Lead Exposure From Tap Water

If residents choose not to filter their water for lead, we highly recommend that they request a free lead test kit and take the following measures to reduce their risk.

• Allow water to run for at least 2 minutes before using it for drinking, cooking, and preparing infant formula:
• Never use water from the hot water tap for drinking, cooking, and preparing infant formula:
• Only operate the faucet at moderate flow when collecting water for drinking, cooking, and preparing infant formula. This practice reduces the likelihood that lead-containing particles are swept into the water as it flows through the pipes.
• Regularly remove and clean out their faucet aerator, which removes lead-containing particles that may have become trapped in the mesh screen.

As always, we encourage everyone to take advantage of Hydroviv's "Help No Matter What" technical support policy, where we answer questions related to drinking water and water filtration, even if you have no desire to purchase our products. Drop us a line at support@hydroviv.com.

Sources Used In This Article

Source Water Assessment For Allegheny River
2016 PWSA Lead Results Disclosure
2015 Consumer Confidence Report
US EPA Table Of Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants And Definitions

Other Great Articles We Think You'll Enjoy

Is Fluoride In Tap Water Bad For You?
Best Way To Use A TDS Meter
What Are Disinfection Byproducts, And Why Should I Care?

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

One of the most frequently asked questions that our Water Nerds get asked is, “is my water safe?” Unfortunately, the answer to this isn’t all that cut and dry. We wanted to make a quick video explaining what “safe” really means.

What Does "Safe" Drinking Water Actually Mean?

“Safe” is a regulatory definition that means your drinking water is in compliance with standards set by the decades-old Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). There are only 90 contaminants regulated under this act, and thousands of others that are not. Unless mandated by the state, municipalities don't account for any unregulated contaminants. According to EPA, if the levels for each regulated pollutant meet EPA’s standard, then the drinking water is in compliance and therefore "safe". This doesn't take into account the presence of unregulated contaminants such as chromium 6 or 1,4-dioxane. On April 10, 2024, the US EPA has announced drinking water standards to limit exposure to 6 types of PFAS chemicals.

Can States Regulate Drinking Water?

States can create their own standards for regulated and unregulated contaminants, California being the best example. Most states typically don’t prioritize setting drinking water standards, or can’t afford to do so. Also, setting more stringent safe drinking water standards means that municipalities are responsible for complying with new allowable limits. This often means purchasing detection equipment as well as expensive filtration technology. More often than not, fitting these huge expenses into a local budget is impossible, and states take that into consideration when setting new standards. 

Defining Legal Jargon

It’s important to understand the difference between enforceable and non-enforceable regulatory terms. Non-enforceable terms include; Lifetime Health Advisory Levels, Public Health Goals, Minimum Risk Levels, and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. All of these are non-enforceable terms, and therefore municipal water treatment facilities do not need to comply with them. The only enforceable safe drinking water standards are Maximum Contaminant Levels and Action Levels. 

Why are Enforceable and Non-Enforceable Standards Different?

Often, EPA is aware that their enforcement standards are set higher than what toxicologists consider to be safe. To address this, EPA creates Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) which refer to “the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health would occur...” The MCLGs are non-enforceable levels, and enforcement is only to MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels). 

In 2001, EPA set an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion for Arsenic in drinking water. That same year, EPA adopted an MCLG of 0 parts per billion. This was EPA’s way of acknowledging that there really is no safe level of Arsenic in drinking water. EPA is unable to adopt a lower threshold because municipal water systems across the country would be out of compliance. EPA has to balance the cost imposed onto water municipalities, with the benefits associated with human health.

This same principle goes for contaminants with health advisories. EPA previously set a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA. Soon after, the Center for Disease Control recommended reducing the advisory level to 20 parts per trillion for the same contaminant. Finally, there are several health and regulatory agencies that understand that federal limits are set way over a safe threshold. At Hydroviv, we look at toxicological data instead of regulatory data when determining if your water is safe. We prefer to make recommendations about what doctors and pediatricians say is safe.

In Summary

That was a lot of information so here’s a recap! When municipalities label water as “safe,” they’re only referring to the handful of regulated contaminants. There’s a lot of regulatory jargon that might make it hard to understand the difference between the recommended monitoring level and the enforceable monitoring level. And finally, what regulations say and what toxicologists say is very different in terms of “safe” levels. At Hydroviv, we look at toxicological data instead of regulatory data. We prefer to make recommendations about what doctors and pediatricians say is safe.

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy: 
Is Ionized Alkaline Water a Scam?
5 Things To Know About Arsenic In Drinking Water
Why Does EPA Allow "Acceptable" Amounts of Toxic Substances In Drinking Water?

Analies Dyjak | Policy Nerd

October 4, 2018- Elon Musk and The Musk Foundation confirmed a donation of $480,350 to Flint, Michigan Community Schools in hopes of addressing lead contamination in drinking water. Flint is one of many school districts across the country that has been working hard to generate long-term solutions for lead contamination in drinking water. This article examines whether the proposed filtration technology will effectively remove lead from drinking water. 

How Will The Funding Be Used?

Musk initially announced the filters would comply with FDA’s 5 parts per billion standard (which is actually the standard for lead in bottled water), instead of EPA’s 15 part per billion Action Level. While definitely lower than EPA's threshold, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Center for Disease Control have both acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead for children. The Musk Foundation has not released the exact type of water filters Flint, Michigan Community Schools plans to use. Press releases have indicated some type of ultraviolet filtration system. 

What Is UV Water Filtration?

Ultraviolet filtration eliminates biological contamination from drinking water. This includes bacteria, viruses, and harmful microorganisms like E.coli. The idea behind UV filtration is it prevents microorganisms from reproducing, by striking each individual cell. It’s comparable to and often more effective than using chlorine to kill bacterial contamination.

Does UV Filtration Filter Lead?

No. While UV filters are great at removing biological contamination from drinking water, they have several limitations. UV filters by themselves are not able to remove chemical contaminants including Volatile Organic Compounds, chlorine, lead, mercury and other heavy metals. To remove chemical contaminants (including lead), a UV-based system would need to be paired with lead removal media or reverse osmosis.

Our Take

Contrary to a lot of media reports, UV filters do not remove lead from water, so we're hoping that the UV is paired with a system that removes lead. We also hope that the filters are installed at the point of use, because water treated by a point of entry filter can accumulate lead in any pipe "downstream" of the filtration unit. 

Other Article We Think You Might Enjoy:
Why Are So Many Schools Testing Positive For Lead In Drinking Water?
Volatile Organic Compounds: What You Need To Know
Lead In Drinking Water
Heavy Metal Toxicity and Contamination

Why Optimization Matters

Have you every traveled to a different city and noticed that the water tastes different? That’s because the water chemistry is different, and more importantly, the problems present in the water are different too.

Around the country, millions of U.S. households have contaminants in their water that exceed public health goals, but the individual contaminates vary significantly state by state and even zip code by zip code. The issues in your water can be impacted by a variety of factors including the age of your home and city’s infrastructure, the natural geology of the region, and your home’s proximity to industrial sites, farms and military bases. Cities with older infrastructure like Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and Jackson, Mississippi, for example, face issues with lead contamination, while new developments in the American Southwest may be lead-free, but record unsafe concentrations of arsenic.

To address the unique issues in your water, our Water Nerds analyze water quality reports from local, county, state, federal and academic sources, and then build a customized filter designed to match and screen out the specific contaminates and bad-tasting chemicals coming out of your tap. The result is a hyper-targeted and long-lasting filter designed to keep your water safe and tasting great.

Here are a few examples of how water differs around the country:

• Lead: Lead contaminates tap water differently than most pollutants, because lead comes from the plumbing, not the water supply. Many neighborhoods in older cities have lead-containing service pipes that connect water mains to residential plumbing. Homes with pipes installed before 1986 often also have lead-containing solder. Lead can enter the water supply when municipal corrosion controls fail (what happened in Flint, Michigan) or when water sits stagnant in pipes for long periods of time. Lead contamination is a problem in all major U.S. cities, but there have been significant issues reported recently in Newark, Pittsburgh, Nashville and New York City. Many common pitcher filters do not remove lead.Learn more>
• Arsenic: Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic heavy metal that leaches into groundwater from surrounding rocks. Areas of the country where arsenic levels are high include Maine, Texas and much of the Southwest. Most common pitchers and fridge filters do not remove arsenic. Learn more>
• Chromium-6: Chromium-6, the cancer-causing chemical at the center of the Erin Brockovich story, is still used in a number of industrial processes including steel production, leather tanning, and textile manufacturing. It can enter local rivers and groundwater through waste, and despite notable media attention is still not well regulated. Homes located near current or former industrial facilities are most at risk. Learn more>

Chlorine vs. Chloramine:

Most municipalities around the country use chorine to disinfect their local water supply, but some, including our hometown of Washington, D.C., use chloramine. While both are safe at the levels used, neither taste very good. Most common filters are designed to remove only chlorine, but Hydroviv’s system is tailored to match whichever is used in your hometown, giving you the best-tasting results. Learn more>


Learn more about our and get the best solution for your water.

Emma Schultz, M.S.

Many schools across the country have recently made the news for lead contamination in water, often at dangerously high levels. Since the Flint, Michigan water crisis brought lead contamination and lead poisoning into the spotlight in 2015, there has been a push to increase water testing in schools, for good reason. It’s unlikely that these high test results are new; it is much more likely that this has been an ongoing undetected problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 90,000 public schools (as well as half a million child care facilities) are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act due to utilizing a municipal water utility. While these statistics are dated (2002), they are still referenced by EPA. Since the utility is the responsible party for testing water, the school itself is not required to test, unless there are more stringent local laws or they voluntarily choose to do so. Most do not, or if they do, their results may not be reflective of normal lead levels. Water frequently stagnates in school pipes, due to nights, weekends, and summers where water usage is drastically diminished. That stagnation leads to leaching of lead, and therefore lead accumulation, when there are lead pipes or lead-containing valves and fittings. Many public schools across the country have an aging infrastructure, and with age comes the increased likelihood of lead-containing plumbing.

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a safe level of lead in drinking water. No level of lead is safe, especially when it comes to children, who are most sensitive to lead poisoning. The EPA limit of 15 parts per billion, set in 1991, is much higher than EPA and CDC have admitted is safe (they agree, there is no safe level of lead). In addition, 10% of samples are legally allowed to exceed the 15 ppb threshold without resulting in any utility violations. In contrast, The American Academy of Pediatrics proposes that lead in school drinking water should not exceed 1 ppb.

Lead Contamination In Montgomery County, Maryland Schools

Maryland’s governor, Larry Hogan, signed legislation in May 2017 mandating occasional testing of drinking water faucets in the state’s public and private schools. Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) began testing their 205 schools in February 2018, with an anticipated finish date of June 30th. Of their 205 facilities, drinking water test reports have been released so far for 21 schools.

While the nationwide Action Level for lead in municipal drinking water, as established by EPA, is 15 parts per billion, the Action Level for faucets in Maryland’s schools is set at 20 ppb. This is an amount agreed to by EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment, and it is also the amount recommended under EPA’s voluntary guidance for schools utilizing their own water supply per the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule.

Of the 21 MCPS schools with released results, 12 have test results with lead levels higher than 20 ppb. Some of these violations come from faucets that students do not normally interact with, though several may be used during food preparation. Test results, broken down by school, are as follows:

School	Individual Tap Results
Gaithersburg Elementary	2 classroom fountains tested above 20 ppb, at 83.6 and a staggering 253 ppb. Many fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results varied from 1-13.9 ppb.
New Hampshire Estates Elementary	1 classroom fountain tested above 20 ppb, at 42.5 ppb. Many of the taps tested at <1 ppb, with some faucets and fountains varying from 1-11 ppb.
Pine Crest Elementary	2 taps tested above 20 ppb: one classroom fountain at 28.4 ppb, and an office faucet at 31.9 ppb. Many fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results ranged from 1-12.8 ppb.
Rock View Elementary	1 classroom faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 40.6 ppb. The majority of taps tested at <1 ppb, with no other taps testing above 4.2 ppb. This school overall tested at very low lead levels, with one anomaly.
Rolling Terrace Elementary	2 taps tested above 20 ppb: one classroom faucet at 21.6 ppb, and a classroom fountain at 21.9 ppb. Many of the fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results varied, with two faucets testing above 10 ppb, at 10.8 and 11.6 ppb.
Strathmore Elementary	2 faucets tested above 20 ppb: one classroom faucet at 30.3 ppb, and a kitchen faucet at 51.8 ppb. While a few classrooms tested at <1 ppb, most did not, with other results as high as 18.4, 10, and 16 ppb.
Summit Hill Elementary	2 classroom faucets tested above 20 ppb, at 32.4 and 21.5 ppb. Some of the taps tested at <1 ppb, with other results varying from 1-16.1 ppb. Classroom 5 had a faucet test at 16.1 ppb and a fountain test at 15.3 ppb.
Viers Mill Elementary	1 classroom faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 59.9 ppb. Many of the fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results varied from 1-10.2 ppb.
Eastern Middle	4 faucets tested above 20 ppb, at 56.6, 24.2, 64.9, and 34.9 ppb. Some taps tested at <1 ppb, with others ranging from 1-17.7 ppb.
Parkland Middle	1 kitchen faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 33.9 ppb. The majority of taps tested at <1 ppb, with no other taps testing above 6 ppb. This school overall tested at very low lead levels, with one anomaly.
Sligo Middle	2 faucets tested above 20 ppb, a break room faucet at 50.6 ppb, and a kitchen faucet at 29 ppb. Some taps tested at <1 ppb, and no other taps tested above 5 ppb. This school overall tested at very low lead levels, with two anomalies.
Northwood High	1 workroom faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 128 ppb. The majority of taps tested at <1 ppb, with others ranging from 1-14.7 ppb.

While the remaining schools tested thus far are considered “safe” from high lead levels according to protocol, 19 of the 21 schools had test results above 10 ppb. For example, a water fountain in the Kindergarten area of Rosemont Elementary tested at 10.9 ppb, and a fountain in the music area of Washington Grove Elementary tested at 19.8 ppb.

Laytonsville Elementary, constructed in 1951 (and renovated in 1989, prior to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule) had the following test results, which are perhaps most concerning of the schools technically considered to be “safe.” Several classroom faucets were found to have 15.7, 17.7, and 19.6 ppb of lead, while there were water fountains that tested at 13.9, 12.3, and 11.1 ppb. The average amount of lead across all Laytonsville Elementary faucets was over 5 ppb, while the average across all water fountains was 4.27 ppb. This suggests that the drinking water at Laytonsville Elementary may be more harmful to children than several of the schools that have made the news following the release of these test results. Also harmful to these children and their parents are news sources who have reported misleadingly on the story that “nine schools’ water tests did not show any elevated level of lead [including] Laytonsville E.S.” Once again, that there is no safe level of lead in drinking water, especially for children.

More test results should be released from MCPS soon.

Other Articles We Think You'll Enjoy

Why are so many schools testing positive for lead?
How does lead enter tap water?