Pure Water Occasional, May, 2023
 
Greetings from Pure Water Products, the Pure Water Gazette, and the Pure Water Occasional.
 
 
In this Occasional you'll hear about the importance of water testing, the use of hydrogen peroxide in water treatment, possible water contamination from PVC piping, the EPA's action against PFAS polluters, how perchlorate gets into water, how chlorine works to disinfect water, and how water is used to remove caffeine from coffee. Hear about California's vanishing beaches, how nitrates get into drinking water, and  how to enrich yourself by owning a reverse osmosis unit. And, as always, there is much, much more.
 
Thank you for reading, and sincere thanks from Pure Water Products for your continuing support.  
 
Thanks for reading!

Please visit the Pure Water Gazette, where you will find hundreds of articles about water and water treatment, and the Pure Water Products website, where there is much information about water treatment and the products we offer. On both of these information-rich sites, pop-up ads and other distractions are stricly against the law.
 
 

 
 
People Say That Buying a Water Filter Without a Water Test is Like Baking a Cake Without a Recipe

by Gene Franks
Well, if they say that, they’re wrong.  It’s a lot worse than baking without a recipe, for you not only risk spending a lot more than you need to but you are also likely to get something that doesn’t work for your situation.
 
Many water treatment issues require knowledge of several characteristics of water that can only be determined by testing.  For example, if you have well water, simple observation may tell you that you have iron in your water, but in order to treat the iron properly you need to know not only how much iron you have but also the pH of the water and often the dissolved oxygen content of the water.  It’s best to know if iron bacteria are present and if there are other problems that can be addressed at the same time.  Iron and hardness, for example, can often be addressed with a single treatment device, and if there is odor in the water you can get rid of that as well if you choose the correct iron treatment.  You also need to know if there is manganese present, since iron and manganese can be reduced with the same treatment.  Simply buying an “iron filter” from a big box store or a website might work, but it’s likely to be only a partial solution to your problem or to be a complete waste of time and money.
 
A good water analysis can also alert you to serious problems you didn’t know you had–like an elevated level of arsenic or chromium–or it can give you assurance that your water does not have hidden contaminants that can damage your health.  If the water you drink every day has a dangerous amount of lead or pesticides, you definitely want to know it, but it is equally valuable to know that your water is not contaminated.
 
In fact, I believe that the great value of a water test is not necessarily finding out what’s bad about your water but specifically what is good about it.  When a good test shows that your water is safe and wholesome, the test is well worth the price for the reassurance it gives that you.

Please visit the Pure Water Products website to learn more about our National Testing Laboratories water test kits.
 
The article above appeared in the Occasional for May 20, 2017,  right below an interesting piece about Leonardo da Vinci's understanding of watersheds and  the complex flow patterns of water above and below the Earth's surface.  You can find this issue and many, many more by using the back issue lists found on the on the Pure Water Gazette's Back Issue Listing for the Occasional.  
 
 

 
 

Understanding Chlorine: How It Works to Disinfect Water

Introductory Note:  The article below is adapted from information from Blue-White Industries.  It provides a good explanation for the frequently misunderstood terms free chlorine, total chlorine and combined chlorine. Not everyone may agree with all of its content.  

For over a century, chlorine has been used to provide clean drinking water to communities in the U.S. and across the world. In the correct doses, chlorine can kill a broad range of pathogens while remaining safe for people and animals to consume. The key is dosage, as too little chlorine will not have the disinfecting power required to eliminate the most critical pathogens. Too much chlorine can cause water to taste and/or smell unappealing, or worse, have long-term negative impact.
 
Measuring chlorine isn’t a simple matter of saying, “I have X parts per million in my water.” After all, once chlorine enters water, it begins to change, and when it interacts with pathogens and other matter, it changes again.  There are technically three measurements that must be considered: free chlorine, combined chlorine, and total chlorine.
 
How Chlorine Works

In water, chlorine breaks down into smaller chemicals such as hypochlorite ion and hypochlorous acid. It is these substances that kill bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. They do this by either collapsing proteins in bacterial cells or damaging the outer membrane of viruses and similar pathogens. Not every pathogen is equally vulnerable to chlorine, however. Protozoa such as Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium are chlorine-resistant. Fortunately such pathogens are large and can be easily removed via filtration.
 
Free Chlorine

“Free chlorine” is the amount of chlorine that is available to combine or oxidize contaminants in water. The greater the amount of free chlorine, the greater the disinfection potential. In a drinking water system, the amount of free chlorine should generally be kept between 2 ppm and 4 ppm. When free chlorine levels rise above 4 ppm, the water may take on a strong “swimming pool” smell or taste.  However, too little chlorine means there may not be enough chlorine available to disinfect pathogens.
 
Combined Chlorine

When hypochlorite ions and hypochlorous acid interact with contaminants, they form new compounds. Generally speaking, these new compounds are no longer available for disinfection. The amount of combined chlorine measures how many pathogens or other contaminants have been using chlorine, which helps to understand how dirty the water is (or was).
 
Of course, not all combined chlorine chemicals are inert. When chlorine combines with nitrogen, it can form chloramines. These compounds do have some disinfection power, but they are not likely present in high enough quantities to be considered in disinfection potential (unless operators deliberately added ammonia to the system with the intent of forming chloramines).
 
Other types of combined chlorine include disinfection byproducts (DBPs), such as trihalomethane and haloacetic acid. These substances occur when chlorine reacts with natural organic matter in the water. DBPs can be harmful to human health and are regulated by the U.S. EPA.
 
Total chlorine

As the name suggests, this measures the total amount of both combined chlorine and free chlorine. Total chlorine is the easiest to measure and can be tested with simple test strips. If you want to test your city water for chloramines, you need a test kit that tests “Total Chlorine.”
 
Reference Source:  Water Online. 
 
 
Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement
 

 

Treating Hydrogen Sulfide and Iron with Hydrogen Peroxide Injection

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Water Treatment Grade 7% Hydrogen Peroxide
 

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is one of the most powerful oxidizers available for water treatment. Although it can be used to control bacteria, its main use is as pretreatment for filters removing iron and hydrogen sulfide.
 
Less hydrogen peroxide than chlorine is required to treat iron and hydrogen sulfide. When hydrogen peroxide reacts, oxygen is liberated and an oxidant potential 28 times greater than chlorine is produced. 
 
Seven percent hydrogen peroxide (70,000 ppm) is the standard water treatment strength.  At this strength liquid hydrogen peroxide can be transported through normal shipping methods and is not considered hazardous.
 
Thirty-five percent hydrogen peroxide (350,000 parts per million) is sometimes used. It is a hazardous material and must be handled with great care. It usually requires dilution with distilled water for residential use. For this reason, for most home applications 7% hydrogen peroxide is the product of choice.
 
A Filter Is Required

Like air, ozone, and chlorine, hydrogen peroxide prepares contaminants to be removed by a filter.  The oxidizing agent is only half of the treatment. The filter that follows is necessary to remove the precipitated contaminants. Carbon is in most cases the filter medium of choice after hydrogen peroxide treatment.  Manganese dioxide media like Birm, Katalox and Pyrolox  can be destroyed by hydrogen peroxide.   Carbon, both standard and catalytic, works well for both hydrogen sulfide and iron removal.  Carbon also breaks down the residual peroxide, so there is usually no peroxide left in the service water. Mixed media filters, zeolite filters, and redox filters (KDF)  have also been used successfully.
 
If the water is very clean and no iron is present, a carbon block filter alone can be used following H2O2 injection, but in most cases–in all cases, if iron is present–a backwashing filter is required. The backwashing process can also clear the system of gas pockets which can form, so backwashing filters are preferred in most cases, even if only odor is being treated.
 
Stability and Storage
 

Hydrogen peroxide is exceptionally stable, having around a 1% per year decomposition rate.  Heat and sunlight can increase the rate of decomposition.  Dilution of the peroxide should be done only with the best water possible. Distilled water is preferred.  H2O2 reacts with impurities in the water and loses strength in the process.
 
If using 35% peroxide, the 35-percent solution should be diluted to 7%. To do this, add 5 parts distilled, reverse osmosis, or deionized water to 1 part 35% hydrogen peroxide. Seven percent hydrogen peroxide is usually fed without dilution although it can be diluted if the injection system will not feed it in small enough quantities.
 
Practical Treatment Limits

H2S2 can be used to treat up to 10 ppm iron. There is virtually no limit for hydrogen sulfide. It is not uncommon to oxidize up to 70 ppm hydrogen sulfide with peroxide.
 
Dosage: Simple But Not So Simple

Figuring the dosage needed for your application could not be simpler.
 
Here’s the formula:
  • Well pump output rate in gallons per minute, multiplied by
  • Required dosage in parts per million, multiplied by
  • 1440—the number of minutes in a day—divided by
  • Solution Strength in parts per million, which equals
  • Needed Metering Pump Output in gallons per day (GPD).
Just joking about the “could not be simpler” part. Actually, accurate dosage calculations are impossible and only work in college chemistry classes. In the real world, there will always be parts of the equation that you don’t know. However, working the formula helps you make an educated guess so you will know which size pump to buy and it will give you a starting place. Understand that in the end, there will always need to be some trial and error, some adjustment to your settings, then more trial and error. The information and calculator on this page may help, but don’t expect the calculator to give you a pat answer.
 
Other Considerations in Sizing and Setup
 
 Use 0.4 ppm peroxide for each ppm of iron.  Hydrogen sulfide treatment is pH dependent. Use 1 ppm hydrogen peroxide for each ppm of hydrogen sulfide at pH 7.0.  The more alkaline the pH, the greater the dosage required. Adjust dosage accordingly for higher pH. Some trial and error will be necessary.

Warm water also causes oxygen to dissipate more quickly, so a higher dosage may be necessary as water temperatures increase.
 
Dosage is determined by the same formula as with other oxidants: gpm x 1,440  x dosage/ % concentration of  H2O2= chemical feed rate needed.
 
Never mix H2O2 with alkaline chemicals such as soda ash, limestone, or ammonia. This will cause the rapid decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide and might even result in a violent reaction.
 
If an alkaline chemical like soda ash is need to raise pH, feed hydrogen peroxide with one pump and soda ash with a separate pump.
 
Contact Time Required

One of the great advantages of using hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine is that its reaction rate is much faster. Therefore, it is common to use hydrogen peroxide without a retention tank. A retention tank between the injection pump and the filter is a necessary part of the system with chlorine; with hydrogen peroxide, the reaction rate is so fast that a retention tank is usually not needed.
 
Equipment Needed

As stated, a holding tank is usually not needed with hydrogen peroxide.  Inject the peroxide with a peristaltic pump. (Conventional pumps can be used, but they often require modification.) Non-electric pumps also work well with hydrogen peroxide. If 7% peroxide is fed undiluted, a very low delivery rate pump (< 3 gpd, for example) is usually best in theory, but since hydrogen peroxide dosage needs don’t always follow theory, a higher dosage rate pump often works best.  If no holding tank is used, a static mixer at the injection point is recommended.  Injection is normally done before the well’s pressure tank. The filter, of course, follows the pressure tank.  A softener, if used, must be downstream of the filter. Injecting hydrogen peroxide directly in front of the softener with no filter is not a good idea.
 
Reference: Scott Crawford, “Residential Use of Hydrogen Peroxide for Treating Iron and Hydrogen Sulfide,” Water Conditioning and Purification,   December, 2009 .  See also online.
 
 

 

 
How Buying a Reverse Osmosis Unit Can Make You Rich
 
 
 
 
Guess which man owns a reverse osmosis unit.
 
We usually just assume ingesting water contaminants like lead and arsenic is not a good idea. We don’t think about the economic implications. We want our kids to be as smart and as healthy as they can be without having to put a dollar sign on the loss in IQ points that could result from their consumption of water tainted with lead.

A recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Arizona and funded by the Water Quality Research Foundation (WQRF) sought to do just that: to determine the economic benefits of using point-of-use (POU) devices to reduce health risks in drinking water. The study was designed to put a dollar value on the benefits of treating five drinking water contaminant categories–microorganisms, arsenic, lead, disinfection byproducts, nitrates and chromium–with POU equipment.

Lead was considered apart from the other contaminants, since the Flint, MI ordeal offered a convenient way to study lead exposure. Here’s what resulted, as reported by Water Quality Products magazine:

In the case of the water emergency in Flint, the study assumed all of the 98,310 Flint residents were exposed to lead levels of 25 µg/L in drinking water, and 20% of lead in drinking water is manifested in the body as blood lead levels. This corresponded to an average blood lead level of 0.5 µg/L and a loss of 0.257 IQ points. Using the blood lead level to lifetime economic impact model, this corresponds to a lifetime loss of $5,381 per person and a total community cost of $435 million. The average household size in Flint is 2.42 persons, which equates to 40,064 houses. A five-year community wide intervention using one activated carbon filter with lead adsorption capabilities per household would have cost $11.1 million. A five-year POU RO implemented in every home would have cost $26 million. 

 This seems to mean that if each of the 40,064 houses had an RO unit that cost $648.96 to buy and maintain, and each of the 2.42 persons who lived in that home saved the $5,381 that would have been lost because of ingestion of lead, the per household profit resulting from RO ownership would be $12,265 from lead-avoidance alone.
 
What is more, if instead of the RO unit the home installed an activated carbon filter with lead adsorption capabilities, which costs only $277, profit (savings less the cost of the filter) for the 2.42-person home would be even more, $12,637!

Clearly, the filter is the better choice since you can get the same dollar savings from lead removal that you would from the RO unit at a lower purchase price. More bang for your lead-removal buck. Of course, if you factor in the costs of exposure to arsenic, nitrates, chromium, fluoride, sodium, and more–items the RO removes but the filter doesn’t–the extra $400 you pay for the reverse osmosis unit doesn’t look all that bad.
 
 
A reverse osmosis unit is like money in the bank. The more contaminants they find in the water, the more you save.  Get one today!

 The Water Quality Products article suggests the cost saving figures that resulted from the Arizona study can be “leveraged” by water treatment professionals “to talk to their regulators and utilities about this study and encourage the acceptance of POU devices as a risk mitigation strategy.”

We at Pure Water Products will probably leave the leveraging to others and stick to our usual strategy of pointing out that with or without the dollar consideration, and whether you live in a 2.42-person home or a 6.79-person home, an undersink reverse osmosis unit should be a standard household appliance, not an optional item. What a great value! A device that produces pure, great tasting, contaminant-free water at a small cost. Getting rich in the process is just icing on the cake.

Reference Source: Water Quality Products
 

 

Are PVC Pipes Safe?

 
A frequent question that never seems to be resolved to anyone's satisfaction is, Are the PVC pipes used in residential plumbing safe? Do they leach plastics into drinking water, and are these plastics a health hazard?
 
The Pure Water Gazette website has a new article created by NSF, the respected testing agency, about the plastics in PVC and their safety.  Please read:

on the Pure Water Gazette website.


 
 
 
 

 
 

Water News for May, 2023

 
 

Certainly the biggest water news story of the month was the breakthrough agreement of water managers in Arizona, California and Nevada to cut back water use from the Colorado River to keep the river from falling to a level that could endanger the water supply of farms and cities that depend on the river.  The federal government will pay some $1.2 billion dollars to cities, irrigation districts and Native American tribes if they temporarily use less water.  Full story from  National Public Radio.
 
The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River. The river is a drinking water source for 5 million people, and the EPA’s Clean Water Act violation order cites 71 instances between September 2018 to March 2023 in which Chemours’ Washington Works facility discharged more PFAS waste than its pollution permit allowed.
 
The agency also noted damaged facilities and equipment that appeared to be leaking PFAS waste onto the ground. The chemicals are ubiquitous and linked at low levels of exposure to cancer, thyroid disease, kidney dysfunction, birth defects, autoimmune disease and other serious health problems.  The step by the EPA drew praise from some environmental groups, but at least one noted the permit still allows high levels of PFAS pollution and may not adequately protect the environment and human health.  The Guardian.

 The action against Chemours is notable for being the first EPA Clean Water Act enforcement action ever taken to hold polluters accountable for discharging PFAS into the environment.  PFAS pollution has been going on for decades and this is the EPA’s first action again polluters. Remember that when you hear politicians whine about over-regulation.

Five leading water associations — the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), and Water Environment Federation (WEF) — have submitted formal policy recommendations to Congress and the White House on establishing a permanent federal low-income household water assistance program (LIHWAP), according to an AMWA press release.
 
As part of their recommendations, the groups also released a detailed analysis, “Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Program Assessment Study,” which establishes that water affordability is a significant challenge for 20 million U.S. households and puts the annual need for federal funding to address this challenge as high as $7.9 billion.
 
Perchlorate
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced $2,499,579 in research grant funding to Texas Tech University for research on the behavior of perchlorate after fireworks events near water sources.
 
“Protecting our water resources and ensuring clean drinking water is one of EPA’s top priorities,” said Chris Frey, Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “With this research grant, Texas Tech University will be able to provide states and utilities with further knowledge on how to protect drinking water from perchlorate contamination.”
 
Perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket propellants, explosives, flares and fireworks. Recent increases in the use of fireworks have caused concern over potential increases of perchlorate in ambient waters that serve as sources of drinking water. Perchlorate in drinking water sources can be a health concern because above certain exposure levels, perchlorate can interfere with the normal functioning of the thyroid gland. Prior research has investigated water contamination from fireworks; however, there are gaps in understanding the magnitude and extent of perchlorate contamination before, during, and after fireworks are discharged around drinking water sources.  (The best way to remove perchlorate from drinking water is reverse osmosis.)
 
Racial and ethnic divide in concerns about drinking water quality

An ongoing national poll has found that most adults in the country are significantly worried about contaminated drinking water — results that are notably higher for minority consumers.
 
“Over the past two decades, Gallup has consistently found that Americans worry more about pollution of drinking water than other environmental concerns,” Gallup reported. “In response to Gallup’s annual environmental polls from 2019 to 2023, 56% of Americans overall said they worry ‘a great deal’ about pollution of drinking water. However, that sentiment was expressed by 76% of Black adults and 70% of Hispanic adults, compared with less than half (48%) of White adults.”
 
Across all adults polled, 56% indicated that they worry about pollution of drinking water “a great deal” and 24% indicated that they worry about it “a fair amount.”
 
Gallup attributed the racial disparity to the prevalence of major drinking water contamination emergencies in communities of color, like Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi.
 
“Racial and ethnic differences in concern about drinking water likely stem from a mixture of direct experience and media coverage of disasters that have disproportionately affected minority communities,” according to Gallup. “Many low-income Black and Hispanic Americans live in areas with aging infrastructure … Black and Hispanic Americans’ greater likelihood to worry about tainted water suggests a lack of faith in regulators to keep the public safe in light of crises like those in Flint and other cities with large communities of color.”
 
 
Research reported  in The Guardian  indicates that by the end of the century up to 70% of California’s beaches could be gone. 
 

 

 
 
 
Nitrates in Water: The Basics
 
The primary sources of nitrates in water are human sewage, livestock manure, and fertilizers. Areas with a high density of septic tanks and animal agriculture in close proximity to the drinking water source are most vulnerable to contamination by nitrates. Research has shown an increase in nitrates in water as both agriculture and population grows. While nitrates used to be a “well water” problem, many urban water suppliers now having to work to keep nitrate levels down. (See Nitrate Levels in Drinking Water Are on the Rise.)

The foremost health hazard associated with excessive levels of nitrates in water is blue baby syndrome, a condition that affects the blood usually in infants 6 months old or younger. Young infants’ digestive systems convert nitrates to nitrites and can be fatal.

Nitrates and nitrites are very soluble and cannot be precipitated from water. This means they have to be treated with a chemical or biological process. The best treatments for nitrate contamination are reverse osmosis, distillation, and anion exchange. Reverse osmosis is normally the product of choice for residential applications. Anion exchange can also be effective but it is important to have a water analysis to show other contaminants. Anion treatment is less effective in water with high TDS, high hardness, and high sulfates.

The US EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are 10 mg/L for nitrate and 1 mg/L for nitrite.
 

How Caffeine is Stripped from Coffee by Use of the Chemical-Free Water Method


 
Caffeine is in the coffee bean for a reason.  It’s a natural alkaloid that serves the coffee plant as a pesticide.  It paralyzes bugs that invade the plant and also gives off a bitter flavor as a warning of its toxic nature.

Caffeine is water soluble, as are most of the other ingredients of the bean that give coffee its flavor.

The art of decaffeination, therefore, consists of stripping the caffeine from the coffee bean while leaving behind the desirable ingredients that provide the coffee taste and aroma.

Several methods are used to remove caffeine from coffee. Many involve chemicals, but others rely almost entirely on water. The water methods are definitely the more desirable. The so-called Swiss Method is considered the standard of excellence. 
 
Here’s how the process is described:

The green, or unroasted coffee is fully submerged in filtered water that has been heated, in order to extract all the soluble material from the beans. The water solution is then filtered through carbon to separate the caffeine compounds from any of the aromatics that also came out during the extraction, and the coffee beans are then placed in an immersion tank with the caffeine-free solution, allowing them to reabsorb everything but the jitters.

World standards differ on the definition of “decaffeinated coffee.”  Some allow for 97% caffeine reduction, but the highest standards require elimination of as much as 99.9% of the alkaloid content of coffee in order to display the decaffeinated label.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Places to visit for additional information:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thanks for reading. The next Occasional will appear eventually--when you least expect it.
Pure Water Products, LLC, 523A N. Elm St., Denton, TX, www.purewaterproducts.com. Call us at 888 382 3814.
Powered by YMLP.com