Eliminating Dangerous Chemicals from Our Water: Is It Feasible?

Recent studies have shown that technologies employed to remove so-called 'forever chemicals' from our drinking water are multitasking by also eliminating other hazardous compounds, including those linked to various health risks.

Government Regulation and Industry Pushback

A new publication in ACS ES&T Water arrives at a crucial moment, as discussions mount around regulations for cleaning up forever chemicals in our water supplies. The previous administration put forth mandates to address this issue, setting a deadline for utilities to comply with PFAS cleanup measures by 2029. However, revisions to these regulations have been suggested, drawing backlash from water utility companies concerned about the high costs estimated, which far exceed initial expectations.

Understanding PFAS and Their Impact

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are persistent environmental pollutants known for their resistance to degradation. These chemicals are linked to an array of health problems and are now thought to contaminate nearly half of the U.S. tap water supply, as per geological surveys.

The Biden Administration’s Stricter Approach

The current administration has strengthened PFAS regulations, applying legal boundaries for several PFAS variants in water. This action indicates a tough stance on the issue, even as debate unfolds over potential regulatory changes.

Brigit Hirsch from the EPA notes that ongoing evaluations might lead to even more stringent requirements. The agency’s comprehensive approach reflects a significant commitment to eliminating PFAS from drinking water and holding responsible entities accountable.

Beyond PFAS: Additional Benefits of Enhanced Filtration

According to experts, tackling PFAS in our water infrastructure could yield unexpected advantages, such as removing additional poisonous compounds formed during routine water treatment processes. Leaders at the Environmental Working Group emphasize that PFAS-targeted technology could also address byproducts from disinfection that pose cancer risks.

Types of Filtration Methods Employed

Research has identified three effective filtration technologies that not only target PFAS but also mitigate a broader spectrum of contaminants. Sydney Evans, an analyst contributing to these findings, highlights chlorination's insufficiency in mitigating some harmful elements and suggests filtration as a more comprehensive solution.

Disinfection Byproduct Concerns

Chlorine disinfection, a standard practice to kill pathogens, unintentionally gives rise to harmful byproducts when reacting with organic materials present in the water and its infrastructure. Extended exposure to these byproducts increases cancer risks, a reality echoed by multiple studies and utilities' advisories to residents.

Data Supporting the Benefits

Analysis of data from 19 water systems shows significant decreases in disinfection byproducts after filtering for PFAS, underscoring the positive secondary effects of these filtration systems. The study detailed average reductions of 42% and 50% in specific harmful chemical levels, validating the utility of advanced treatment solutions.

Future Directions: Scaling Solutions

Despite promising data, a notable disparity exists between smaller and larger utility systems regarding the adoption of these technologies, largely driven by cost concerns. Smaller systems often serve under-resourced populations, highlighting the critical need for equitable access to pollution-reducing technologies.

Challenges in Implementation and Research Continuation

The challenge of scaling these technologies emphasizes the need for further research. Elements like varying exposure sources and seasonal changes must be considered to optimize efficiency across diverse water systems.

Who's Responsible for the Cost?

The financial burden of improving water treatment infrastructure is a complex issue, splitting responsibility between utilities and wider societal investments. As policies continue to evolve under the current administration, balancing financial realities with public health priorities remains a critical challenge.