Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

Hydroviv's Water Nerds

Hydroviv’s founder, Dr. Eric Roy was called as an expert witness to testify before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology - Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. The topic of this hearing was aimed at solving the nationwide lead crisis, with particular emphasis on the crisis underway in Newark, New Jersey. Lead contamination in U.S. tap water remains a high priority for lawmakers, although current policies and solutions are not sufficient.

Dr. Roy shared the stage with fellow scientists, physicians, and engineers who are dedicated to solving the nationwide lead crisis. In his testimony, he laid out a framework for the Federal Government to align academics, government scientists, and technology developers to solve water quality problems in the same way that Federal Agencies do for high-priority security initiatives (also has significant experience). 

We were honored that Dr. Roy was called on as a thought leader for such an important discussion by such a prestigious House Committee/Subcommittee. A transcript of the testimony can be found here.

Analies Dyjak, M.A. & Dr. Eric Roy, PhD

People are often under the assumption that cheaper water filters are “better than nothing,” and opt for a quick and easy solution to a very complicated nationwide problem. We saw this first hand in a recent Duke University/NC State PFAS Study. Whirlpool, Samsung, Berkey, and Aquasana actually put a significant amount of PFAS (which is a probable human carcinogen) back into the filtered water. This article will address why low-end water filters don’t actually work as well as you might think. 

Why Do Most Water Filters Not Work?

The short answer to this is because companies choose to develop products that are easy to market, instead of developing products that actually work. Most consumers incorrectly assume that if the water tastes and smells good, that the filter is also removing harmful chemicals. There are three main reasons why the most commonly used water filters do not remove contaminants like lead, PFAS, and arsenic:

1. Wrong Active Filtration Media: There are different types of filtration media (e.g. carbon, ceramics, ion exchange) that remove different contaminants. Inexpensive filters that are geared to make water taste better typically just use granular carbon. This does nothing to remove lead, chromium 6, etc.

2. Wrong Pore Structure: The pore structure of the overall filter is a major factor in how effective the filter is. If the pores are too open (as is the case with pitchers and low-cost systems that use granular media), the water doesn’t have enough contact time with the media, so the contaminants flow through the filter. On top of contact time, the wrong pore structure can lead to “dead end pores” which decreases the contaminant removal capacity and kills flow rate.

3. Wrong Testing Conditions: Filtration companies often use marketing gimmicks to imply performance against contaminants that actually matter. This includes things like a TDS Meter, “The Red Dye Test,” and not showing performance data throughout the lifetime of the filter. Companies that use these gimmicks often have their performance problems exposed when 3rd party groups actually do the tests correctly. 

How Hydroviv’s Approach is Different: 

Hydroviv is different from other water filter companies because we optimize each system we sell according to the customer’s water quality data. This ensures that the active media blend and pore structure will actually work. This is why Hydroviv filters outperform others against contaminants like PFAS, which are extremely hard to remove.

Our Take: 

Before purchasing a water filter, it’s important to ask for third-party test data under relevant conditions. Ask to see data for the contaminants actually found in your water, and demand to see data that were collected throughout the filter's lifetime, especially for PFAS. Be extremely cautious when companies make claims like “99.99% removal of contaminants,” because they’re only talking about the contaminants that they tested their system against. If you’re curious about what’s in your drinking water, send an email to hello@hydroviv.com and our Water Nerds would be happy to help you out.

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
PFAS: Everywhere We Look We Find It
5 Problems With Reverse Osmosis Water Filters
How To Filter Chromium 6 From Drinking Water

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Policy Nerd

With nationwide focus on synthetic contaminants like PFAS, we wanted to address an under-reported problem in California tap water. Lead contamination has been flying under the radar in the years following the Flint, Michigan lead crisis. Although Flint brought attention to lead contamination, it’s still a major nationwide problem, even in 2020. California has older lead-containing infrastructure in all major cities throughout the entire state. To make matters worse, utility companies are only required to test a handful of homes to determine city-wide lead levels. This article highlights California cities with the highest lead concentrations, and how you can remove it from drinking water. 

Where In California Has The Highest Levels of Lead?

Major cities across the entire state of California have lead levels that are well above what health officials claim to be safe. For a bit of context, the current lead levels in Flint, Michigan are 4 parts per billion:

Los Angeles: 5.2 parts per billion 
San Francisco: 6 parts per billion
San Jose: 5 parts per billion
Oakland: 2.4 parts per billion
Irvine: 5 parts per billion

How Much Lead Is Allowed In California Tap Water?

The current “Action Level” for lead in drinking water is 15 parts per billion. Dr. Jennifer Lowry, who is a chair member at the American Academy of Pediatrics says that "most existing lead standards fail to protect children. They provide only an illusion of safety.” People are surprised to learn that any amount of lead is even allowed in tap water. The reality is that lawmakers must weigh the harm to human health with the cost of removing it. 

Is There A “Safe” Level of Lead?

For children, absolutely not. In fact, all major U.S. health agencies agree that there is no safe level of lead for children. The health agencies listed below all agree that any level of lead can cause the following: 

Department of Health and Human Services: decreased intelligence, behavior problems, reduced physical stature and growth, and impaired hearing.
American Academy of Pediatrics: irreversible cognitive and behavioral problems, lower IQ scores and academic performance, inattention, impulsiveness, aggression and hyperactivity.
Environmental Protection Agency: damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells. 
Center for Disease Control: damage to the brain and nervous system, slowed growth and development, learning and behavior problems, and under-performance in school.

Not All Water Filters Remove Lead

It’s important to point out that not all water filters remove lead from drinking water. People are often under the assumption that their pitcher or counter filters take care of “everything” that might be in their drinking water. This is almost never the case. We wrote an in-depth article discussing why some water filters fail to remove lead, which can be found here. Additionally, some mass-produced water filters do not maintain the lead removal capabilities for the entire lifetime of the filter. When purchasing a water filter, make sure to ask for removal data at the beginning and end of the filters lifetime.

Do Hydroviv Water Filters Remove Lead?

Yes! Hydroviv Undersink and Refrigerator Line water filters are NSF certified to remove lead from drinking water.

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
What Is 123 TCP and Why Is It In California Tap Water?
How Does Lead Enter Drinking Water?
Is The "Erin Brockovich Chemical" Still A Problem In California Drinking Water?

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Eric Roy, Ph.D.

Duke University and NC State researchers recently published a study that examined the effectiveness of residential water filters against PFAS. We believe that this study is extremely important because PFAS are toxic and unregulated, which means that individuals shoulder the burden to remove them from drinking water. While we were excited to be part of this study, Hydroviv is NOT endorsed in any way by Duke University, NC State, or any of the researchers, nor did we pay any money to be part of the study.

How Effective Were Hydroviv Water Filters in Removing PFAS?

Five Hydroviv filters were tested as part of this study, four of which use currently-available active media blends. For these core formulations, the researchers tested two Under Sink Filters that connect directly to the faucet and two Refrigerator Line filters that connect to the water line that feeds the refrigerator. In all four cases, any water with PFAS present in the unfiltered samples had undetectable (below the Method Detection Limit (<MDL)) levels of PFAS after the water was filtered through a Hydroviv filter (blue text in the table below). The results here are consistent with an earlier test report that looked at PFAS removal rates. We assembled the relevant data from the more recent study for our filters in the table below. 

How Did Other Common Whole House, Pitcher, and Refrigerator Filters Perform?

Unfortunately, some of the most popular pitcher, refrigerator, and whole house filters did not perform well. Alarmingly, some systems by Berkey, Aquasana, Samsung, GE, and Brita, actually had HIGHER PFAS LEVELS in the filtered water than the unfiltered sample, because of over-saturation and low quality filtration media. The red text in the table below shows detectable PFAS levels in water filtered by other major brands.

How Did Reverse Osmosis Water Filters Perform?

This study evaluated a number of quality water filters that use reverse osmosis (RO) technology. In each of the RO systems that were tested, any water with PFAS present in the unfiltered sample also had undetectable levels in the filtrate.

If You’re Considering Purchasing a Water Filter That Was Not Part of this Study

The advice we give people looking for a water filter that removes PFAS is to ask the manufacturer for 3rd party test data for PFAS removal (not just PFOA/PFOS) at the beginning and end of the filter’s advertised lifetime. Unfortunately, there are a lot of water filter brands (including filters that performed horribly in this study) that show test data that were conducted when the filter cartridges were fresh, and do not show PFAS test data for the end of the advertised filter life (which they base off chlorine removal). Fortunately, Hydroviv’s Under Sink and Refrigerator Line Filters were tested at month 1 and month 6 as part of this study, as well as the filters that were tested as part of the NC State/CFPUA study several years ago.

Analies Ross-Dyjak, M.A.  |  Policy Nerd

Another environmental tragedy is threatening drinking water in a Detroit suburb. A chromium 6 spill startled commuters traveling on Interstate 696 just days before Christmas. Michigan has been dealing with polluted drinking water, including state-wide contamination from both chromium 6 and PFAS. 

Images courtesy of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

What Happened In Madison Heights, Michigan?

Lime-green sludge spilled over onto Interstate 696 in Michigan just days before Christmas. The source of the pollution was a closed electroplating facility in Madison Heights, Michigan. The owner of Electro Plating Services is currently serving a year in federal prison for improperly disposing various toxic contaminants including chromium 6, trichloroethylene (TCE), and cyanide. A dug pit was also identified on the property. The owner had apparently been illegally disposing of the effluent for years, resulting in an extremely unsightly pit of chemicals. After the operation closed in 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (formerly known as Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) allegedly removed the contents in the facility but failed to remediate the surrounding soil and groundwater. In the initial remedial efforts in 2017, EPA found 37,000 gallons of chromium 6-contaminated water in the basement of the facility.

What Is Chromium 6?

The National Institute of Health (NIH) has determined that chromium 6 causes "clear carcinogenic effects" and that it should be classified as likely to be a human carcinogen through ingestion of drinking water. Chromium 6 is used in various industrial processes including metal plating, steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing, and electroplating. Discharge from any number of these industries can cause chromium 6 to flow through surface or groundwater and enter a drinking water source. Chromium 6 is still not regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 20 years later after the 2000 blockbuster movie starring Julia Roberts brought national attention to this human carcinogen, the federal government has yet to set an “allowable level” in drinking water.

Inaccurate Reporting

As we’ve been watching this disaster slowly unfold, we’ve seen numerous instances of false information regarding chromium 6 and the spill. For example, some news agencies have made false statements claiming that chromium 6 is not dangerous when ingested through drinking water, and that it’s only toxic to humans through inhalation or dermal contact. NIH and other public health organizations have determined that it is in fact carcinogenic to humans. Additionally, the state of California tried to set a state Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 20 parts per trillion in drinking water, confirming its toxicity to humans. A second news source claimed that if chromium 6 from the spill made its way to Lake St. Clair, the levels would be “well below the standard.” As previously stated, there is no federal or state standard for chromium 6.

Our Take:

1. We cannot rely only on environmental regulations alone to protect us from hazards. In this case, post-production remedial efforts by the EPA and Michigan EGLE failed miserably.

2. The owner of the facility most likely had no other choice but to dump pollution into a pit because proper handling and disposal of chromium 6 is expensive. Incentives for proper disposal serve the best interest for workers and the public.

3. People who rely on private wells for drinking water should pay close attention to this incident. Private wells are not regulated by the federal government and do not need to comply with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The basic analysis that most private wells undergo only tests for 5 or 6 contaminants, most of which are biological and certainly nothing that isn't regulated.

4. Consumers need to be responsible for protecting their families from environmental exposures.

Other Article We Think You Might Enjoy:
Chromium 6 In Drinking Water: Background, Exposure, Toxicology
How To Filter Chromium 6 From Drinking Water
Chromium 6 Spilled Into Lake Michigan: What You Need To Know