Dec 28

It snowed a lot in Minnesota last week. Most people look out the window and either smile or wince when they see the white fluffy stuff.

I had a different reaction.

“I wonder if snow would make better drinking water than Plymouth’s tap water?”

We often measure water quality for our clients with a TDS meter. TDS, or Total Dissolved Solids, is a measure of all the “non-water” materials that have been dissolved into the water.

Pure water measures out at ZERO (0ppm or 0 parts per million). It’s made of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Plymouth, MN tap water measures out around 310ppm and contains low levels of arsenic, chlorine, copper, lead, trihalomethanes, etc.

So I set out to compare the quality of snow to tap water.

The experiment was simple:

Step One: Obtain the a nice clear cup and a TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) meter.

TDS Meter

TDS Meter

Step Two: Fill cup with fresh snow from my driveway (also reduces future shoveling)

TDS Meter and Snow Sample

TDS Meter and Snow Sample

Step Three: Wait until snow has melted and water warms to room temperature.

TDS Meter and Snow

TDS Meter and Snow

Results: As you can see, the melted snow tested out at 0ppm dissolved solids. This would make much higher quality drinking water than Plymouth’s tap water, and even many brands of bottled water. This is very similar to the water quality produced by our whole house Pureoflow system and our under sink Reverse Osmosis systems.

As you can see our in-house taste expert, Thor, was immediately drawn to the crisp, fresh taste this snow provided.

Cat drinking water

Cat drinking water

Tagged with:
Dec 25

Merry Christmas to all our friends, family, and clients!

Thank you snow plow drivers for keeping us safe on the roads!

Dec 19

Bottled Water in a Can

Bottled Water in a Can


We thought this was kind of funny. Americans drink about 29 billion gallons of bottled water every year. If you thought bottled water was great for the environment – wait until bottled water in a can catches on!

Tagged with:
Dec 18

The quality of surface water is best assessed using the status of both the water and underlying sediment. A recent study concluded that water bodies risk being misclassified if sediment assessment is not included, which can lead to unnecessary recovery costs.

Under the Water Framework Directive1 (WFD), Member States are required to achieve at least ‘good water status’ for surface water (inland, estuarine and coastal water bodies) in Europe by 2015.

Surface water quality is assessed on both its ecological status and chemical status. Ecological status includes the physical and chemical conditions that affect the water’s biological quality, such as nutrients and oxygen levels.

The chemical status is also determined according to levels (or environmental quality standards (EQS)) of important pollutants, including metals, found in the water, as listed under the EC’s Directive2 on priority dangerous substances.

In this study, Spanish researchers investigated the quality of Basque coastal and estuarine waters in northern Spain. The study focused on the long-term trend (from 1995-2007) of water and sediment contamination by metal pollutants (arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) and the response of these areas to water treatment programs.

In addition, the chemical status of these water bodies was assessed using two approaches: (1) following the principle of ‘one out, all out’ under the WFD, whereby any metal in waters over the EQS will result in the whole station failing to achieve the chemical status (and for concentrations below the EQS, the chemical status is met), and (2) Combining the chemical quality of both the surface waters and the underlying sediment, using a methodology proposed by these researchers.

The river catchments, estuaries and coastal waters of the study area have been polluted by urban and industrial discharges, particularly from iron ore mining in the region. Additional pollution comes from the construction of ports, dredging, sediment disposal, and land reclamation. Emission control measures and water treatment programs have been implemented to help tackle these pressures.

Using the first approach, few of the water bodies achieved good status, and the percentage of systems meeting this status falls over time. Using the second approach, more than 50 per cent of the water bodies achieved ‘good status’, with the percentage of systems meeting this status remaining steady over time.

The researchers argue that the second approach is more accurate in assessing chemical status as it is better at discriminating between less polluted water, which has less impact on wildlife, and that which is highly polluted. In addition, this approach reflects the drop in pollution of river catchments in recent years, which has improved water quality in many bodies.

By considering both water and sediment analysis in determining the status of water quality, resources could better be targeted at those bodies of water where levels of pollution have a greater negative effect on fish and other living organisms in the water. However, the researchers say further research is needed on EQS measurements in water and the interpretation of chemical concentrations of contaminants in sediments.

Source: Tueros, I., Borja, A., Larreta, J. et al. (2009). Integrating long-term water and sediment pollution data, in assessing chemical status within the European Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 58:1389-1400.

This article was originally posted by Environmental Expert on November 27, 2009.

Dec 10

After analyzing federal data, the New York Times found that 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state.

In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.

Scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.

The E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000% higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.

But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

Many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with.

A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.

We will be sure to follow this story as it continues to develop. There have been 100′s of similar stories over the last decade – a sign that the general public is becoming more concerned about water quality.

Information like this makes a comprehensive water treatment system like the Pureoflow an easy choice when it comes to “piece of mind”. No matter what you start with, the right treatment system can deliver safe, clean drinking water.

Tagged with:
preload preload preload