Quantcast
Health
Pexels

Removing Toxic Fluorinated Chemicals From Your Home’s Tap Water

By EWG Science Team

The family of fluorinated compounds known as PFAS chemicals includes more than 4,700 chemicals—some linked to cancer, thyroid disease, weakened immunity and developmental defects, and others whose health effects are unknown. One thing's for sure: You don't want them in your body.


Drinking water is one of the most common sources of exposure. PFAS chemicals could contaminate the drinking water for 110 million Americans nationwide. The Environmental Working Groups's (EWG) interactive map shows areas of known contamination. If you know or suspect these chemicals are in your tap water, the best way to protect yourself is by installing an in-home water filter. But which kind?

Based on information from state health agencies, testing labs, scientific researchers and water filter companies, the most effective choice for in-home treatment of PFAS-tainted tap water is a reverse osmosis filter, followed by an activated carbon filter—a slightly lower-cost option.

But many questions remain unanswered. More research is urgently needed to better understand how to ensure removal of the many types of PFAS compounds. To help with your choice, below are details of what is currently known.

Disclaimer: EWG is not recommending any specific brand of filter and cannot guarantee that a filter's performance will match the results reported below.

States Leading Response to PFAS Contamination Crisis

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a health advisory level for the two most-studied PFAS compounds in drinking water—PFOA, formerly used to make DuPont's Teflon, and PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M's Scotchgard. The advisory level is 70 parts per trillion, or ppt, for the two chemicals combined. But the best and most current scientific research says that's much too high, and the EPA's advisory level is not legally enforceable.

That's why some states with extensive PFAS drinking water contamination are taking steps to set more health-protective limits or advisory levels. For example, New Jersey has set a legal limit of 13 ppt for perfluorononanoic acid, or PFNA, and proposed enforceable limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for both PFOS. Other states such as Washington, Michigan, and North Carolina are conducting additional testing to further evaluate the extent of contamination in drinking water.

Some of these states have issued recommendations for water filters to remove PFOA and PFOS, including:

Guidance and factsheet documents from these states recommend two types of filters for removing PFAS chemicals: activated carbon and reverse osmosis. The states provide information on the pluses and minuses of the two types, and tips on how to maintain them to ensure effective filtering. They also compare the two types of filter installations: "point of use," which are installed under the kitchen sink or in the refrigerator, and "point of entry," which treat the water for the whole house.

In communities with the worst contamination, such as in Minnesota or Michigan, whole-house filtration is often used. It is effective, but expensive in comparison to point-of-use filtration and may not be necessary in most cases. Further, since whole-house systems also remove chlorine, they may introduce additional risks of harmful bacterial growth in plumbing.

Filters Certified for PFAS Chemical Removal

NSF International, a testing and certification company, developed a certification standard for removal of PFOS and PFOA in 2016. The certification requires that the filter reduce these two chemicals only to EPA's health advisory level of 70 ppt. Currently, 71 products from seven manufacturers are certified to meet this standard.

However, drinking water can contain other PFAS chemicals, sometimes at higher levels than PFOS and PFOA. PFOS and PFOA, which are now banned, are called 'long-chain' compounds because they have eight carbon atoms, while the chemicals that have replaced them are called 'short-chain' compounds because they have fewer carbon atoms. While similar, these so-called "next-generation" compounds have different molecular structures, and the effectiveness of filters certified for PFOS and PFOA for removal of replacement PFAS chemicals is unknown.

Filter Testing by State Agencies

In 2007, the Minnesota Department of Health commissioned testing of home water filters to determine their efficacy in removing PFAS. Six activated carbon filters and eight reverse osmosis filter types were tested. The tests determined that four of the six carbon filters and seven of the eight reverse osmosis filters provided sufficient reduction of PFAS chemicals. In field testing, four activated carbon devices and seven reverse osmosis systems, all equipped in tandem with activated carbon filters, removed PFOA, PFOS and PFBA to the detection limit of 50 ppt.

The study noted that for the carbon filters, the effectiveness of removal of PFOA, PFOS and another chemical, PFBA, decreased over operating life in five of the six filters tested in laboratory conditions. That means that users will have to replace the filters on the recommended schedule to ensure effective filtration of PFAS chemicals.

In 2017, Minnesota released the results of a study for a faucet-mounted carbon filter made by PUR. The filter was tested for seven PFAS chemicals typically seen in groundwater in Washington County in Minnesota. The state concluded that this low-cost filter could be used to effectively reduce PFAS contamination. Six of seven contaminants including PFOA and PFOS were removed below the reporting limits of 5 and 10 ppt, respectively, achieved in the 2017 study. In contrast, levels of the shorter chain PFBA were only reduced by 75 percent.

Filter Testing by Academic Institutions

Professor Detlef Knappe and his research group at North Carolina State University have independently tested numerous home water filter options. To date they have tested at least 27 home-use filters.

Last year, Knappe told the Star News of Wilmington, N.C. that an under-sink reverse osmosis filter was probably the best choice for home treatment. He said it's not only effective, but its continued effectiveness can be easily verified with an electrical conductivity tester, an inexpensive tool that people can use at home.

Detailed testing results were publicly presented in 2017 for four under-sink reverse osmosis filters and one whole-house activated carbon filter. These filters that were tested for removal of a dozen PFAS chemicals, including both long-chain and short-chain compounds.

Three out of four reverse osmosis filters reduced the long-chain compounds to below 10 ppt, with the other filter reducing them to a slightly higher level. The four reverse osmosis systems also removed between 95 and 99 percent of short-chain compounds.

One whole-house activated charcoal filter from Aquasana was tested. It provided no reduction of PFAS levels. In contrast, an activated carbon filter made by Hydroviv delivered results similar to the reverse osmosis filters.

EWG Contacted Water Filter Companies

EWG surveyed 51 water filter companies to find out about their filters' capabilities to remove PFAS. We heard back from 14 companies, but only four of them verified that their filters remove any PFAS chemicals.

Only Berkey provided EWG with test data for their carbon filters, which reported removal of nine PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS, all below the detection limit of 2 ppt. However, only 25 gallons of water were filtered, instead of the recommended 6,000 gallons to measure lifetime efficacy. Aqua Systems and Triple Clear stated that removal for their products was only to the EPA advisory levels and Crystal Quest reported that removal was variable.

Reverse Osmosis Filters vs. Activated Carbon Filters

In general, reverse osmosis systems more consistently removed PFAS compared to activated carbon systems.

Most reverse osmosis systems also have the benefit of an additional activated carbon filtration stage included in the system. Reverse osmosis systems remove a wider range of other contaminants from drinking water and their effectiveness can be tested at home using an electrical conductivity meter. But activated carbon filter systems are significantly less expensive than reverse osmosis systems. Carbon filters must be changed on schedule as they will lose their effectiveness over time.

Recommendations

  • Check out EWG's interactive PFAS map to see if your drinking water has high levels of PFAS chemicals or if there is a contamination site near your community.
  • If you live in an area with contamination, contact your local health department for current information.
  • If you have a private well and suspect PFAS contamination, consult your state health department about having your well tested.
  • The best bet to filter PFAS chemicals out of your water is an in-home reverse osmosis filter under your sink or at your tap. To ensure that the reverse osmosis filter is working, use an inexpensive conductivity meter. These filter systems remove ions and total dissolved solids in addition to other contaminants, and a low conductivity reading for the filtered water indicates that the filter is overall effective.
  • You can also consider an activated carbon filter that will most often provide effective removal. Results have been inconsistent and the filters become less effective with time. If possible, choose a filter that has been tested for PFOS, PFOA and additional PFAS chemicals that may be present in your water.
Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Climate
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Yann Arthus-Bertrand / Getty Images

Climate Change Is Already Making Hurricanes Wetter, Study Confirms

New research published in Nature Wednesday has confirmed that some of the most destructive hurricanes to pummel the U.S. in the past decade were made worse by climate change.

Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people in Louisiana, Hurricane Irma, which devastated the Caribbean and southeastern U.S. last year, and Hurricane Maria, which killed nearly 3,000 in Puerto Rico, were five to 10 percent wetter because of global warming, scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Westend61 / Getty Images

EcoWatch Gratitude Photo Contest: Submit Now!

EcoWatch is pleased to announce its first photo contest! Show us what in nature you are most thankful for this Thanksgiving. Whether you have a love for oceans, animals, or parks, we want to see your best photos that capture what you love about this planet.

Keep reading... Show less
Animals
Baby mountain gorilla. Pixabay

Conservation and 'Renewed Hope': Mountain Gorilla Numbers Rebound

First, the good news. Collaborative conservation efforts have brought "renewed hope" for mountain gorillas and two large whale species, according to today's update from the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.

The mountain gorilla subspecies moved from "critically endangered" to "endangered" due to anti-poaching patrols and veterinary interventions. In 2008, their population dropped to as low as 680 individuals––but the new estimates reveal that the number of mountain gorillas has increased to more than 1,000 individuals—the highest figure ever recorded for the eastern gorilla subspecies, the IUCN said.

Keep reading... Show less
Politics
Agricultural workers in Salinas, California. Michael Davidson / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

200+ Groups Call on Senate to Reject 'Pesticide Industry Loyalist' as USDA's Top Scientist

By Andrea Germanos

Denouncing his "strong ties to corporate agribusiness and pesticide companies," more than 240 groups urged the Senate on Wednesday to reject the nomination of Scott Hutchins, President Donald Trump's pick for chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Popular
The world's forested area shrunk by 129 million hectares between 1990 and 2015. Pixabay

France Looks to Curb Palm Oil and Beef Imports to Halt Deforestation

In a significant move to combat worldwide deforestation, the French government unveiled a national strategy on Wednesday that looks to curb imports of soybean, palm oil, beef and beef products, cocoa, rubber, as well as wood and its derivatives.

The new plan, a joint effort from five French ministries, identifies these items as contributing the most to "imported deforestation"—meaning these products are directly or indirectly tied to forest degradation.

Keep reading... Show less
Oceans
The dramatic conclusions of a recent study on ocean warming have been cast in doubt by newly discovered errors. marion faria photography / Getty Images

New Findings Cast Doubt on Claim That Oceans Have Warmed 60% More Than Scientists Thought

Two weeks ago, EcoWatch reported on a terrifying study that claimed the world's oceans had warmed 60 percent more in the past 25 years than previously thought. This raised the possibility that the earth was more even more sensitive to climate change than scientists had believed, meaning we have even less time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep temperatures within a livable range.

In the two weeks since the study was first published in Nature, however, errors have been spotted in the paper that cast doubt on that alarming 60 percent figure.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Health
Pixabay

Turkey Is Bad on Antibiotics—Pork and Beef, Even Worse

By David Wallinga, MD

Heading into the holidays, many of our families are planning meals centered around a delicious turkey, ham or brisket. But a new analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and our partners at Food Animal Concerns Trust shows that our families' health is at significant risk from how these American meats are typically produced.

Keep reading... Show less
Energy
The Great Australian Bight is home to one of only two southern right whale calving grounds in the world. Greenpeace / Jaimen Hudson

An Oil Spill in the Great Australian Bight Could Be Twice as Bad as Deepwater Horizon

Equinor, Norway's state oil company formerly known as Statoil, has faced criticism from environmentalists over its plans to drill the Great Australian Bight off the country's southern coast. A potential spill in the area would threaten the ecosystem and endanger the largest breeding populations of endangered southern right whales in the world.

Such fears are now confirmed if a blowout should actually occur, according to a leaked draft Oil Pollution Emergency Plan authored by Equinor and obtained by Greenpeace's Australia Pacific branch.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!