Pure Water Occasional, August, 2023
 
Greetings from Pure Water Products, the Pure Water Gazette, and the Pure Water Occasional.
 
 
In this Occasional you'll hear about the ups and downs of water softeners, how temperature affects UV performance, how filter carbons differ and which are best, why "chlorine burns" are necessary, the shocking rise of sea temperatures, the controversy over nuclear waste water disposal, the alarming over-abundance of PFAS, Google's water consumption, the versatility of our compact whole house filters and new cartridges we have for them, 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 specific information about the  products we offer. On both of these information-rich sites, pop-up ads and other distractions are strictly against the law.
 
 


 

Water softeners, a hard problem

by Shawn O. Novack

Introductory Note: The article below, from a San Benito CA news source,  is reprinted because it looks at the ever popular water softener from the viewpoint of both the user and the water supplier. For the water supplier, and for all of us as citizens of the world, the byproduct of the conventional water softener, sodium, has become "the biggest contaminant affecting water supplies in California, the nation and the world."  Not mentioned in the article are the vendors of water softeners, us, who are addicted to water softeners as a reliable and fairly easy source of income. Water softeners, when needed, are a valuable tool, but most of us know they are over-promoted and sometimes sold with the dealer's profit rather than the customer's need in mind.  We acknowledge that we share in the guilt in polluting the world's fresh water with salt. --Pure Water Products. 

Water softeners reduce the “hardness” of the water in your household, which can have several benefits for consumers. Less soap and detergents are needed for laundry and cleaning. There is less staining, spotting and scaling on appliances. Clothes last longer and there are energy savings in water heating due to less scaling.
 
But the use of water softeners can also have harmful effects on the environment. Additional salts into our wastewater make it difficult for treatment plants to meet regulatory requirements. Harmful salts also add to the salinity of our groundwater basin.
 
 
How does a water softener work?

 
A typical water softener utilizes an ion exchange, which involves the exchange of the hardness minerals, chiefly calcium and magnesium, for sodium (salt) or potassium (potassium chloride).
The exchange takes place by passing water that contains hardness minerals over ion exchange resins in a tank.
 
The calcium and magnesium contact the resin as they travel through the resin tank, displacing sodium or potassium ions. The displaced sodium or potassium ions pass downward through the resin “bed” and out the softener drain and into the sewer system. This is how the softener delivers “soft” water, but it also delivers salty brine to our wastewater treatment plant. This is where the problem begins.
 
 
The Problem


Every wastewater treatment facility in California must meet strict limits issued by state and federal agencies on the amount of total dissolved solids (TDS) and mineral concentrations to protect groundwater. If a wastewater treatment facility is found to be in violation of its discharge limits by these agencies, significant fines may result.
 
The discharge of salt brines into the wastewater collection system from the use of water softeners has a negative impact on recycled water and wastewater effluent. Higher salinity increases the treatment costs and reduces the potential for beneficial reuse of wastewater for irrigation of high-value crops and landscaping, and industrial purposes.
 
It can also impair a wastewater treatment agency’s ability to comply with discharge standards for TDS.
 
 
Sodium has little redeeming value in the environment—outside of saltwater or brackish water ecosystems. It has been cited as the biggest contaminant affecting water supplies in California, the nation and the world.
 
To compound the problem, the local groundwater basin has naturally occurring salt and minerals.
 
Plus, our groundwater basin is essentially a “closed loop” basin. This means water rarely leaves our basin unless there is a large storm event that swells the San Benito River to where it can push water through to the Pajaro River. This was the case during this year’s storms.
 
Because of this configuration, in dry and average rainfall years water is allowed to percolate back down into our aquifers and adds mineral content to the groundwater supply.
 
 
Solution


The City of Hollister, Sunnyslope County Water District and the San Benito County Water District collaborated on the Hollister Urban Area Water Project that allowed more surface water to be treated locally. The West Hills Water Treatment Plant and the Lessalt Water Treatment Plant process surface water brought into our county from the Central Valley Project. This water has much less mineral content than local groundwater.
 
Several benefits result from treating more surface water and blending it with groundwater. The City of Hollister and the Sunnyslope County Water District have been delivering higher-quality drinking water to all their customers than in years past. It is still not “soft” but has much less minerals than pure groundwater.
 
This has increased the quality of wastewater that is treated at the local reclamation plants. Higher quality wastewater assists in meeting discharge requirements, helps to protect the groundwater basin and helps to produce high-quality recycled water that can be used again.
 
These are the reasons why new installations of water softeners that use salt and/or potassium have been banned in the service areas of the two urban water providers (Sunnyslope County Water District and City of Hollister).
 
Solving the salinity problem in our water supply will require a community-wide effort.
 
If you currently own a water softener, the Water Resources Association of San Benito County (WRASBC) has a free service where they will assist you in adjusting your water softener for maximum efficiency. They also offer a rebate program for those customers who would like to demolish their water softeners or transition to a salt-free water conditioner. The rebate for demolishing your old water softener is $300.
 
Another option, if you truly have a need for soft water, is to transition to an off-site regeneration service where a service provider picks up the salty brine leftover from the regeneration of your softener and processes it outside our county. If you choose this option, a one-year service contract is required, and the rebate is $250.
 
Just make sure a WRASBC technician inspects your old water softener before disposing of it so you can take advantage of the rebate.
 
Shawn O. Novack is Water Conservation Programs Manager for the Water Resources Association of San Benito County, and the San Benito County Water District.

Article Source:  SanBenito.com
 


 

 

Hotter Isn’t Necessarily Better When It Comes To UV Output


Most ultraviolet systems that are used to disinfect water flowing at less than 40 gallons per minute use what are called “low-pressure” UV lamps.  These lamps contain a small amount of mercury, which vaporizes when current flows past the lamp, producing what is considered the ideal “germicidal” UV wavelength of 254 nanometers.

The ideal dosage of 254 nanometers, however, is dependent on some variables, and not the least of these is temperature.

UV designers speak of the “cold spot” on the lamp.  That is the coolest section on the lamp surface.  The “cold spot” should be at about 108 degrees (42 C.) for the UV unit to operate at the optimal 254 nanometers. As the temperature of the lamp changes, so does the dosage from the lamp.

In standard residential UV units the germicidal lamp is enclosed in a transparent tube called a quartz sleeve.  The sleeve is immersed in water.  The sleeve surrounds the lamp and protects it from exposure to water.  Although water does not touch the lamp, the temperature of the water affects the lamp temperature since it cools the air between the sleeve and the lamp.  A change in water temperature, therefore, can have a dramatic effect on the temperature of the lamp itself and consequently on the performance of the UV unit.


How Temperature Affects UV Output


There is an assumption that the higher the temperature within the UV treatment chamber, the greater the effectiveness of the UV unit at disarming pathogens. Not so.  In fact, varying in either direction from the ideal cold spot temperature results in diminished performance.  Cold water can lower the cold-spot temperature so that the UV output will drop as much as 50 percent below its maximum. Hot water around the quartz sleeve will also lower the UV output by as much as 50 percent.  Ideal water temperature for operating a UV unit with the lamp inside a quartz sleeve  is about 22 C (71 F).

One factor that is seldom considered in UV planning is that water standing in the UV treatment chamber can become very hot.  In undersink UV units,  the elevated temperature can send aesthetically unpleasing tepid water out of the spigot, but what is worse,  elevated heat can also  reduce the efficiency of the UV lamp.  This could be a problem if a long period of  inactivity is followed by a period of high flow rate.

Some modern UV manufacturers, like Viqua,  offer an optional solenoid-controlled feature that moves water through the system periodically to prevent heat build-up. In most small residential units this is not necessary. 

 
 

What Kind of Carbon Is Best?

or, How Is Filter Carbon Like a Parking Lot?

by Emily McBroom and Gene Franks

 
 
The “carbon” (often called “charcoal”) that is used for water treatment is made from a variety of raw materials. Someone has said that filter carbon can be made from anything that contains carbon, even peanut butter. Most filter carbon is made from coal–bituminous, sub-bituminous, lignite–and from nut shells, especially coconut shells.
 
Some of the characteristics that are considered by filter makers when choosing raw materials for the carbon products are:
  1. Surface area – square meters of surface per gram of carbon. The surface area determines how much adsorption can take place and what types of contaminants the carbon can take onto its surface.
  2. Iodine Number – indicates the ability of the carbon to adsorb small, low molecular weight organic molecules, like volatile organic chemicals.
  3. Molasses Number – indicates the ability of the carbon to adsorb large, high molecular weight organic molecules, like colors.
  4. Bulk Density – indicates the density as pounds per square foot in a column. In general,  the higher the density, the more surface area available for adsorption.
Water Quality Association training materials provide such a good explanation of how these four parameters apply to carbon suitability that we can’t resist borrowing it.
 
 
The inside surface of the activated carbon particle can be viewed as a large parking lot for organic molecules. Further, one can view the large molecules as semitrucks, and the small organic molecules as compact cars. Using this viewpoint, it is easy to illustrate a number of things. First, if most of the pores in the activated carbon are micropores (small parking spaces), the semitrucks are going to have a difficult time moving inside the parking lot, and they will have difficulty finding a parking site which fits. But, the compact cars will have an easy time. (This corresponds to a high iodine number.) Second, it the pores are mostly macropores (large parking spaces), the semitrucks will be able to get around fine, but it will be an extremely inefficient way to park compact cars. (This corresponds to a high molasses number.) Third, if there are only a few roads connecting the various areas inside the parking lot, the cars will all pile up, and the roads will act as a bottleneck. Ultimately, a large number of small cars can be parked, but the parking lot will fill slowly. This is what happens if there is not a suitable mix of micropores (small spaces)  and macropores (big spaces).

So, activated carbons made from lignite coal tend to have large pores (macropores) and make good parking spaces for big trucks, like tannins.
Carbons made from coconut shells have very small  pores (micropores) and are especially good parking spaces for very small molecules like VOCs, which are the compact cars of the organic chemical world.
 
But over the years, the most widely used carbon material of all is bituminous coal, because bituminous carbon has big pores and little pores and a lot of mid-sized pores (mesopores)  that are just right for parking the great many average-sized family sedans, SUVs, and pickups. In other words, bituminous carbon is widely used because it works pretty well for just about anything. Bituminous coal based activated carbons are frequently a good first choice for general dechlorination and reducing the concentration of a large range of organics.
 
All carbons, by the way, work well for removing chlorine and even chloramine, although contact time with the carbon needs to be about twice as long for chloramine as for chlorine. (Specially processed carbon called “catalytic carbon,” which is available in coal- or coconut-based, is much better at chloramine removal than standard carbon.) All carbons work well for taste/odor improvement, and we find no scientific basis to support the common belief that coconut shell carbons make water taste better than other carbons.
 
There are other considerations, of course, that are left out of the parking lot method for choosing carbon. An important one for residential users is a test called Ball-Pan Hardness.  It puts a numerical value on the hardness of the carbon–how much banging around it will take before it breaks down.  In this test coconut shell carbon always comes out way ahead of bituminous. This is significant for tank-style residential filters because when carbon breaks down because of the rolling and tumbling of repeated backwashing it gets into service lines. Think of it as the coconut shell parking lot having tougher walls and posts to withstand the banging it gets from those wild compact car drivers.
 
Carbon made from peanut butter, by the way, fares poorly on the Ball-Pan Hardness test but has an excellent Molasses number and great Surface Area.
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
What Are Chlorine Burns? and Why Do People Hate 
Them?

 
Once a year, usually in spring,  water suppliers that normally disinfect their product with chloramine, a mixture of chlorine and ammonia, perform a cleaning procedure known as a "chlorine burn."  The purpose is simply to clean out the pipes, ridding the distribution system of film and debris that has built up.


The clean-out is accomplished by simply switching disinfectants from chloramine to straight chlorine for a time, and usually upping the dosage a bit to speed things along. Compared with chlorine, chloramine is a rather weak disinfectant.  Its weak performance allows sludge and scum, bacterial film, to build up in pipe walls and crevices.  The yearly purge, or "burn," with straight chlorine,  cleans things out.
 

Chloramine is substituted for chlorine as the regular disinfectant in an increasing number of city water systems. The switch from chlorine to chloramine has been going on over a number of years as suppliers seek ways to stay in compliance with EPA standards for DBPs,  disinfection by-products, that are produced as a consequence of chlorination. Some DBPs are known carcinogens, and EPA requires suppliers to monitor them.  Chloramine, a weaker disinfectant, does not produce DBPs.


Are chlorine burns a good idea?  Good or bad, they are necessary, since without a periodic cleanout, buildup in pipes would create significant problems for the water distribution system.  The practice does call into question, however, the wisdom of using chloramine rather than chlorine in the first place, since, as many argue,  while in progress, the burn and subsequent purging of pipes creates elevated levels of disinfection by-products in the system and higher than normal chlorine discharge into lakes and streams. In other words, for a short time we get concentrated doses of disinfectants and byproducts, which may be worse than what we would have with chlorine as the regular disinfectant.

The moral: With a good carbon filtration system in your home, you won't even know when the burn takes place.  The elevated chlorine levels, murky water, and dislodged sediment that your neighbors are complaining about, you won't even notice.
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 

Compact Whole House Filters for a Variety of Purposes

By far the most common application for cartridge-style whole house filtration units is removal of sediment from city and well water  and the removal of chlorine or chloramine from treated city water. However, these very versatile filters can fulfill a number of functions according to the cartridge installed. 
 
 
 
The compact whole house units use basic standard sized and readily available 4.5" X 20" filter cartridges. The housings are the old faithful 20" Pentek "Big Blue" units, so replacement o rings and wrenches are easy to find. Brackets are sturdy but light stainless steel, and mounting screws are included.  Standard size is for 1" pipe, but you can have 3/4" or 1.5" for the asking.  Two or more units can be joined together with standard hardware store pipe nipples or stainless connectors to make multi-stage filters.
 
 
The standard units offered on our website are a 5 micron wound string sediment filter and a utility grade CTO coconut shell carbon block filter, a taste/odor/chlorine filter for city water with chlorine.  The carbon block unit is often also used to polish taste and odor on well water.
 
 
One each of the filters above to be installed in series is a popular combination. In addition to the two standard units, the same housing assembly can be used for other filtration tasks.   It becomes a very high performance chemical filter for a variety of contaminants when used with the MatriKX CTO Plus. The CTO Plus version is rated for an incredible 240,000 gallons of chlorine reduction, 12,000 gallons of chloramine treatment, plus reduction of smaller amounts of PFAS and VOC.   
 

It can also be equipped with Pentek's Radial Flow Chloramine filter.  This very very free-flowing chloramine cartridge is rated for 25,000 gallons chloramine reduction at 2.5 gpm and 200,000 gallons of chlorine reduction at 4 gpm.  
 
With Pentek's 4.5" X 20" iron reduction cartridge, the compact whole house unit becomes an exceptionally useful light duty iron filter for well water. 
 
 
Other options include pleated, wound string, and melt blown sediment cartridges in many micron ratings, a variety of carbon blocks, plus media cartridges with catalytic carbon, KDF, softener resin, calcite, and more.   Any cartridge on this page will fit the unit.  Price of the full unit with cartridge varies according to the cartridge selected. 
 

New 4.5″ X 20″ Cartridges

The MatriKX PB1 and Chloraguard Carbon Blocks

 
 
We're happy to announce that we have added two major MatriKX Coconut Shell Carbon Block cartridges to our 4.5" X 20" cartridge offerings.  These cartridges, the PB1 and Chloraguard, fit our popular "Compact Whole House" filter series and they will fit any filter housing that accepts 4.5" X 20" cartridges.Both are high quality coconut shell carbon block filters. The PB1 targets lead and cyst removal and the Chloraguard is built to be especially effective at reducing chloramines in city water. Both also are tested and recommended for treatment of VOCs and PFAS.
 
 

PB1

 
The PB1 is a larger version of MatriKX's popular lead removal cartridge that we've used for many years in our drinking water filters. We now stock it in all four popular standard sizes-- 2.5 X 9.75, 2.5 X 20, 4.5 X 9.75, and 4.5 X 20.  The 4.5 X 20 version is rated for chlorine, chloramine, PFAS, and VOC reduction, as well as for Lead and Cyst Reduction. A word of caution for whole house filter users.  This is the most restrictive carbon block we offer. The manufacturer rates it at 14 psi pressure drop at 7 gpm. This is double the pressure drop of other MatriKX cartridges in this size.
 
  • Here are the basics for the PB1.
 
  • Lead: 25,000 @ 5 gpm,
  • Chlorine:240,000 @ 7 gpm,
  • Chloramine: 12,000 @ 3 gpm,
  • PFAS: 18,000 @ 3 gpm,
  • VOC: 3,000 @ 2 gpm
 

Chloraguard

 
The Chloraguard uses coconut shell catalytic carbon and is specialized for chloramine reduction. It is also tested and rated by the manufacturer for VOC, PFAS, and a whopping 360,000 gallons of chlorine reduction. Pressure drop is only 7 psi at 7 gpm. 
 
Manufacturer's specific on the Chloraguard:
 
  • Chlorine: 360,000 @ 7 gpm,
  • Chloramine: 21,000 @ 3 gpm,
  • PFAS: 21,000 @ 3 gpm,
  • VOC: 4,500 @ 2 gpm,
 
 
You can get much more information about these cartridges from our website.  Note that at the bottom of our web pages there are links to the manufacturer's spec sheets. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Water News — August 2023

 
The leading water news stories of August focused on three central topics:   the alarming increase in water temperatures of oceans, the release into the ocean of contaminated cooling water from Japan’s failed Fukushima nuclear power plant, and the shockingly high levels of PFAS being reported in the nation’s water supply.
 
 
Soaring Sea Water Temperatures

 
There were frequenltly recorded water temperatures so high they are putting many sea creatures at risk. Scientists are worried that an El Niño–prolonged ocean heat-up off the coast of England and Ireland will result in massive death tolls for sea life, along with other terrible outcomes. That’s because temperatures in the North Sea are already 5 degrees above normal. As conditions mount for continued ocean warming,  experts fear that sea life could be killed off like forest dwellers are destroyed during wildfires. More from the Guardian.
 
 
Toxic “forever chemicals” in water systems around the nation. 

Here are some highlights from an article from  The Hill.
 
 
Toxic “forever chemicals” have contaminated water systems around the nation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.

Those chemicals could affect the drinking water of 26 million people, an environmental advocacy organization called the Environmental Working Group estimated based on the new EPA data.
Cities where high levels of some of the most toxic types of the chemicals were found include Fresno, Calif., and Dallas, Texas.
The EPA said that two of the most dangerous types of forever chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, were found at unsafe levels in between 7.8 and 8.5 percent of public water systems.
 
An official at the  Environmental Working Group told The Hill he was “gobsmacked” by the results and said,  “Millions of people have been drinking dangerously high levels of PFAS all of their lives and are learning about it today.”
 
PFAS are a group of toxic chemicals that have become pervasive in both U.S. water and in people. They have been used to make a variety of waterproof and nonstick products including Teflon pans, cosmetics, raincoats and stain removers.
 
Earlier this year, the EPA proposed regulating PFOA and PFOS, saying it would limit them to just 4 parts per trillion — but the new data shows that even some water systems serving big cities have levels of the chemicals that are higher than this.
A sample from Fresno, for example, saw 16 parts per trillion of PFOA and 29 parts per trillion of PFOS — 4 and 7.25 times the proposed regulatory level from the EPA.
 
Exposure to PFAS has been linked to illnesses including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease and high cholesterol. They are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” because they build up and accumulate in a person’s body over time instead of breaking down.

A sample from Dallas also showed PFOA and PFOS above the EPA’s levels, at 4.7 parts per trillion and 5.1 parts per trillion respectively, while the Dallas sample had a total PFAS  concentration of 53.4 parts per trillion.
 
The findings add to a body of literature indicating that these chemicals are widespread. A July assessment from the U.S. Geological Survey found that PFAS were in 45 percent of U.S. taps.
For PFAS overall, which is a broad class of thousands of chemicals, Fresno had 194.3 parts per trillion.
 
 
Release of water from Fukushima
 

The long-anticipated and very controversial release into the ocean of contaminated cooling water from Japan’s failed Fukushima nuclear power plant has begun. The main issue from a water quality perspective is the discharge of tritium, which cannot be removed by treatment before the water is released. There is significant disagreement about the impact of tritium on water quality. See the Guardian for a full discussion. 

Other Water News
 
Google Guzzles Water at an Ever-Increasing Rate

“Google just published its 2023 environmental report, and one thing is for certain: The company’s water use is soaring,” Business Insider reported. “The internet giant said it consumed 5.6 billion gallons of water in 2023.  And as Google and every other tech company in the AI arms race speed to build new data centers, the amount of water they consume will very likely keep rising.” Water Online.
 
 
127-year-old water main breaks

 
A 127-year-old water main under New York’s Times Square gave way on Aug. 29, flooding midtown streets and the city’s busiest subway station.
 
 
The 20-inch (half-meter) pipe gave way under 40th Street and Seventh Avenue at 3 a.m., and quickly delivered a wet reminder of the perils of aging infrastructure beneath the city’s crowded streets.
The rushing water was only a few inches deep on the street, but videos posted on social media showed the flood cascading into the Times Square subway station down stairwells and through ventilation grates. The water turned the trenches that carry the subway tracks into mini rivers and soaked train platforms.
 
New York City has about 6,800 miles (10,900 kilometers) worth of water mains — enough pipe to stretch from Times Square to Tokyo — and has spent $1.9 billion in the past three years upgrading outdated water and sewer lines. Breaks happen somewhere in the city almost every day, though the city said the 402 water main breaks last year were the second lowest number on record, and better than average for a U.S. city if the size of the system is taken into account.  AP.
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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