How Effective Are Brita Filters

Environ Res. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2017 October ane.

Published in concluding edited course every bit:

PMCID: PMC5571974

NIHMSID: NIHMS893330

Effectiveness of Table Top Water Pitcher Filters to Remove Arsenic from Drinking Water

Roxanna Barnaby

^aSection of Microbiology and Immunology, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, United States

Amanda Liefeld

^aDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The Geisel Schoolhouse of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, United states of america

Brian P. Jackson

^bDepartment of Globe Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, Us

Thomas H. Hampton

^aSection of Microbiology and Immunology, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, United states of america

Bruce A. Stanton

^aDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, The states

Abstract

Arsenic contagion of drinking h2o is a serious threat to the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. In the United States ~iii million individuals drink well water that contains arsenic levels in a higher place the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L. Several technologies are available to remove arsenic from well water including anion exchange, adsorptive media and reverse osmosis. In add-on, bottled h2o is an alternative to drinking well water contaminated with arsenic. Even so, at that place are several drawbacks associated with these approaches including relatively loftier cost and, in the case of bottled water, the generation of plastic waste. In this written report, we tested the ability of five tabletop water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking h2o. Nosotros report that simply one tabletop water pitcher filter tested, ZeroWater®, reduced the arsenic concentration, both As^three+ and As^v+, from 1,000 μg/50 to < 3 μg/L, well below the MCL. Moreover, the amount of total dissolved solids or competing ions did non affect the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic below the MCL. Thus, the ZeroWater® bullpen filter is a cost effective and short-term solution to remove arsenic from drinking water and its utilise reduces plastic waste product associated with bottled water.

Keywords: Arsenic, h2o filter, filtration, water quality, drinking water

1. Introduction

Arsenic contamination of drinking water is a serious threat to the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide (Carlin et al. 2016, Flanagan et al. 2015a, Smith et al. 2016, Zheng and Ayotte 2015). In the United States (U.S.), for example, 40-three million people use private wells and the United states of america Geological Survey estimates that ~three million people in the U.S. potable private well water that contains arsenic levels above the Earth Health Organization (WHO) standard and U.S. EPA MCL of 10 μg/Fifty, which was established in 2001 (Zheng and Ayotte 2015). Notwithstanding, arsenic levels in private wells are unregulated. Information technology is upward to the homeowner to exam to determine if there is arsenic in the water and to take appropriate activity to reduce the arsenic concentration (Carlin et al. 2016, Spayd et al. 2015, Zheng and Ayotte 2015).

A major emphasis of the Dartmouth Superfund Inquiry Program (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/ and http://world wide web.dartmouth.edu/~arsenicandyou/), likewise as Superfund Research Programs at Columbia University (http://superfund.ciesin.columbia.edu/), University of Arizona at Tucson (https://superfund.arizona.edu/https://superfund.arizona.edu/), University of California at Berkley (http://superfund.berkeley.edu/), University of California at San Diego (http://superfund.ucsd.edu/), University of Washington (http://deohs.washington.edu/srp/) and the University of Northward Carolina at Chapel Colina (http://sph.unc.edu/superfund-pages/srp/), as well every bit private, government and state agencies (for example, New Hampshire Department of environmental Services (http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dwgb/capacity/arsenic.htm), is to encourage individuals who potable water from private wells to exam their well water for arsenic every three years. If well water arsenic is above x μg/L it is recommended that the consumer change to bottled water immediately, contact the local or state health section, and install either a whole house water treatment system (i.e., point of entry, POE) or a point of use (POU) filtration organisation, which treats the water at a single tap, to reduce the arsenic concentration to as close to zero as possible ([http://www.dartmouth.edu/~arsenicandyou/index.html](Flanagan et al. 2015a, Spayd et al. 2015, Stanton et al. 2015). The choice of a treatment system for arsenic depends on several features of water chemistry including, but not limited to, other contaminants, pH, manganese and iron concentrations, and the arsenic oxidation state and concentration (Sarkar and Paul 2016). Ane relatively inexpensive arroyo to eliminate exposure to arsenic in well water is to utilise bottled water, which has been estimated to price several hundred dollars per year (Flanagan et al. 2015a, Smith et al. 2016). Other approaches to remove arsenic from well water include POU handling systems that can cost from $300 USD up to several 1000 dollars to install plus yearly maintenance costs (~$100/yr.), and POE treatment systems that price $two,000 to $3,000 USD to install plus yearly maintenance costs (~$200 to $300 USD/twelvemonth.)(Flanagan et al. 2015b, Smith et al. 2016). In improver to price, which is known to exist a barrier to remediation, there are other limitations to the use of bottled water and reverse osmosis systems, including the generation of plastic waste and backwash waste product h2o disposal, respectively (Flanagan et al. 2015b, Smith et al. 2016, Spayd et al. 2015).

In this study, nosotros tested the effectiveness of v inexpensive (~$20 to $35 USD for the filtration unit and ~$ten to $15 USD for replacement filters) and readily available tabletop water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking h2o. The impetus for this study was to place a robust, low cost and piece of cake to use system to reduce arsenic in drinking water obtained from private wells. In a recent review of arsenic and environmental health it was noted that a central research need is to improve remediation strategies (Carlin et al. 2016). We report that only one tabletop water pitcher filter tested, ZeroWater®, reduced arsenic, both Every bit^three+ and Every bit^v+ in spiked municipal h2o, from 100 μg/50 to below i μg/L. Moreover, the ZeroWater® h2o pitcher filter also reduced the arsenic concentration from i,000 μg/L to 2.6 μg/Fifty, a value below the U.South. EPA MCL of ten μg/50. In add-on, the ZeroWater® filter also reduced arsenic in well water samples obtained in New Hampshire from 42 μg/Fifty to below detection. The amount of total dissolved solids did not affect the ability of the ZeroWater® water pitcher to remove arsenic below the MCL.

ii. Materials and methods

two.i Tabletop water pitcher filters

Five commercially available tabletop h2o pitcher filtration units, including two of the most pop brands in the U.S., Pur® (model# PPT700W) and Brita® (model# OB36/OB03) were purchased from local merchants. In addition, tabletop h2o pitcher filtration units by ZeroWater® (model# ZD-013-D), Bully Value® (Wal-Mart-model# QP6-Bone) and HDX® (Home Depot-model# QP8-07) were also tested. For each brand three dissimilar lots of filters were tested.

two.ii Arsenic solutions

To brand influent solutions containing arsenic, As^+five and Every bit⁺ⁱⁱⁱ stock (1,000 mg/L) were purchased from Inorganic Ventures, Christiansburg, VA. Advisable amounts of each stock solution were added to tap water (Hanover, NH public water supply, soft h2o) to make solutions with a final total arsenic concentration of 10 μg/50 (5 μg/L As⁺ⁱⁱⁱ and 5 μg/50 Every bit⁺⁵), 100 μg/L (50 μg/L Equally^+three and 50 μg/L Equally⁺⁵), and i,000 μg/L (500 μg/L As⁺³ and 500 μg/L Equally^+v). As⁺ⁱⁱⁱ and As⁺⁵ were added to the influent water since both arsenic species can be present in well water: the relative concentration of each depends primarily on the pH and O₂ content (Sorg et al. 2014). Arsenic concentrations of ten μg/L and as high equally 100 μg/L are non uncommon in well water in the U.S. (Spayd et al. 2015, Zheng and Ayotte 2015). Arsenic concentrations of 1,000 μg/Fifty in well water are less common, only are observed occasionally in the U.S. as well as globe-broad. A second gear up of influent solutions was made in moderately hard water (see below) with a terminal total arsenic concentration of 10 μg/50 (v μg/Fifty As⁺³ and five μg/L As⁺⁵) and 100 μg/50 (50 μg/L As⁺³ and 50 μg/50 Equally⁺⁵). The salt composition of the soft h2o solution was (Na⁺, eleven.i ppm; Mg⁺⁺, 1.28 ppm; G⁺, 1.7 ppm; Ca⁺⁺, eight.46 ppm; and hardness as CaCO_three was 26.41 mg/50)(CE 2000). The salt composition of the moderately hard water solution was (Na⁺, 16.3 ppm; Mg⁺⁺, 4.9 ppm; K⁺, 1.7 ppm; Ca⁺⁺, 16.vi ppm; and hardness as CaCO_iii was 61.four mg/Fifty)(CE 2000). A third gear up of arsenic solutions was made in distilled water and contained either 100 μg/L of As⁺³ or 100 μg/50 of As^+v. Too, h2o samples were obtained from two wells in New Hampshire known to contain arsenic (~42 μg/50): one well was in Concur, NH and the other well was in Kensington, NH. These well h2o samples, although representative of samples obtained in New Hampshire (https://nh.h2o.usgs.gov/project/nawqa/data_gw.htm), differ significantly from other aquifers in the US and other countries that are characterized by higher levels of silica and sulfate. The concentration of Equally⁺³ and Every bit⁺⁵, equally well equally Si, P, Southward, and Fe, in all influent solutions was measured by ICP-MS.

two.iii ICP-MS

Arsenic concentration in the influent (i.eastward., raw unfiltered water) and the filter effluent (i.e., filtered water) was measured by ICP-MS (Agilent 7900 and 8800) following U.S. EPA 200.eight but using He every bit a collision gas. The instrument was calibrated using National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable standards and an initial and continuing calibration verification was performed every 10 samples. Detection limit for arsenic was 0.05 μg/Fifty.

2.four Filtration tests

The showtime ready of experiments was performed on the five filters described above. Briefly, ten liters of influent soft h2o containing arsenic was added to each filter, in ane L increments in the post-obit gild: control (no arsenic added), ten μg/L, 100 μg/L and i,000 μg/L. This was repeated with three lots of each filter brand, except for HDX®, which did not have lot numbers, instead iii different filters were purchased from iii dissimilar Home Depot locations. The second set of experiments was express to the ZeroWater® filter because information technology was the only filter to reduce the arsenic concentration in all influent samples tested to a value below 10 μg/L. Since the ZeroWater® performance data sheet suggests that the filter be replaced after xv gallons (~57 L) studies were as well conducted to test the power of the filter (three dissimilar lots) to reduce the arsenic concentration in 100 Fifty of water, in 1 L increments, containing either 10 μg/Fifty or 100 μg/L arsenic in soft and difficult water. The third fix of experiments was conducted to test the power of the ZeroWater® filter to remove either 100 μg/L of Equally⁺³ or 100 μg/50 of As⁺⁵ from distilled h2o. The quaternary set of experiments was conducted to test the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove naturally occurring arsenic from water obtained from two wells in NH.

2.5 Data assay and statistics

Graphpad Prism version 6.0 for Macintosh (Graphpad, San Diego, CA) was used to perform a statistical analysis of the data. Ways were compared using a t-test or ANOVA followed past Tukey'due south exam, as appropriate. P<0.05 was considered significant, and all data are expressed every bit the hateful ± SEM.

3. Results

3.1 Comparison of 5 tabletop pitcher filtration units

Figure 1 presents the results of studies conducted to examine the ability of 5 tabletop water bullpen filtration units to reduce the arsenic concentration in the influent containing ten μg/L. ZeroWater®, Pur®, Brita® and Cracking Value® reduced the arsenic concentration below x μg/L: nonetheless, HDX® did not reduce the arsenic concentration below x μg/L. Only the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration to less than 1 μg/L.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms893330f1.jpg

The ability of five tabletop water bullpen filters, listed by the make name, to remove arsenic (10 μg/L) from soft water. Control represents ICP-MS measurement of the arsenic solution before it was added to the filters. 3 lots of each filter were tested, i L/filter. *P<0.05 versus x μg/L. **P<0.001, indicates that the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in the filtrate to less than 0.05 μg/L. Data presented equally the mean ± SEM. Effluent arsenic concentrations were: ZeroWater® (below detection, 100% removed by filtration), PUR® (half dozen.9 ± 0.6 μg/L, 31% removed by filtration), Brita® (7.vii ± 0.8 μg/L, 23% removed past filtration), HDX® (8.6 ± 0.eight μg/Fifty, 14% removed by filtration), and Great Value® (eight.6 ± 0.6 μg/50, fourteen% removed by filtration).

Adjacent, studies were conducted to test the power of the filters to reduce the arsenic concentration in the influent containing 100 μg/Fifty. All filters tested reduced the arsenic concentration below 100 μg/50: still, simply the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration to less than 1 μg/L (Figure 2).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms893330f2.jpg

The ability of five tabletop water pitcher filters, listed by the brand name, to remove arsenic (100 μg/Fifty) from soft water. Control represents ICP-MS measurements of the arsenic solution earlier it was added to the filters. Three lots of each filter were tested, 1 Fifty/filter. *P<0.05 versus 100 μg/L **P<0.001, indicates that the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in the filtrate to less than 0.05 μg/L. Data presented as the hateful ± SEM. Effluent arsenic concentrations are: ZeroWater® (beneath detection, 100% removed by filtration), PUR® (65.2 ± 5.5 μg/L, 34.8% removed by filtration), Brita® (72.iv ± 7.7 μg/L, 27.half dozen% removed by filtration), HDX® (81.8 ± six.six μg/L, 18.2% removed by filtration), and Great Value® (79.ix ± ii.4 μg/50, 20.1% removed by filtration).

Finally, studies were conducted to examination the power of the filters to reduce the arsenic concentration in the influent containing 1,000 μg/L. Just ZeroWater® and Pur® filters reduced the arsenic concentration beneath 1,000 μg/L (Figure 3). Moreover, only the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration from 1,000 μg/Fifty to less than 10 μg/L (Effigy iii).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms893330f3.jpg

The ability of five tabletop water bullpen filters, listed past the make proper name, to remove arsenic (one,000 μg/L) from soft h2o. Control represents ICP-MS measurements of the arsenic solution before information technology was added to the filters. Iii lots of each filter were tested, 1 L/filter. *P<0.05 versus one,000 μg/Fifty **P<0.001, indicates that the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in the filtrate to less than 10 μg/L (mean ii.63 μg/Fifty ± 2.06 μg/L). Data presented as the hateful ± SEM. Effluent arsenic concentrations were: ZeroWater® (2.7 ± two.0 μg/50, 99.seven% removed by filtration), PUR® (737.seven ± 72.4 μg/50, 26.2% removed by filtration), Brita® (808.two ± 99.2 μg/L, 19.ii% removed by filtration), HDX® (913.5 ± 95.0 μg/L, 8.seven% removed by filtration), and Great Value® (916.eight ± 56.8 μg/L, viii.3% removed by filtration).

three.2 ZeroWater® Filter: Robustness and result of water hardness

The goals of the adjacent series of studies were to: (ane) examine the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to reduce the arsenic concentration in the effluent of 100 L of water in 1 L increments and (2) to examine the effect of water hardness on the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to reduce the arsenic concentration in 100 L of water in i L increments. Kickoff, studies were conducted with 10 μg/L arsenic in the soft and moderately hard water solutions. The ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in the x μg/L arsenic influent to values between 0 and <0.125 μg/50 in 300 of 300 arsenic containing solutions made in the soft h2o (Figure 4) and in 299 of 300 arsenic containing solutions made in the difficult water (Figure four). Thus, the ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in 599 of the 600 liters of water tested from ten μg/L to levels below 0.125 μg/L.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms893330f4.jpg

The ability of the ZeroWater® pitcher filter to remove arsenic from 100 liters of water (measured in ane Fifty aliquots) containing 10 μg/L or 100 μg/L arsenic dissolved in either soft water or moderately hard water. Three lots of filters were tested. ICP-MS was used to measure arsenic in a total of 1,200 samples. Data are plotted in a stacked bar chart. The Y-axis represents the number of samples plotted as a office of the arsenic concentration measured in the filtered water (X centrality). Data in each bin is centered on the value (e.g., the first stacked bar is centered on 0, indicating that the arsenic concentration in those samples was between the limit of detection of 0.05 μg/Fifty and <0.125 μg/L. The second bar from the left is centered on 0.25 μg/L, indicating that the arsenic concentration in those samples is >0.125 μg/50 and <0.375 μg/Fifty. An increase in the hardness of the water reduced the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic from the 100 μg/L solution co-ordinate to a Fisher's exact test (p < 2.2e-16).

Side by side, studies were conducted to examine the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic from the 100 μg/Fifty soft and hard water solutions. The ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in the 100 μg/L solution made in soft h2o to values between 0 and <0.125 μg/L in 299 of 300 samples (Figure 4). The ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic concentration in the 100 μg/L solution fabricated in the hard water to values between 0 and <0.125 μg/Fifty in 222 of the 300 samples (Effigy 4). The concentration of arsenic measured in the 78 samples in which the arsenic concentration was >0.125 μg/L are shown in Figure 4. Seventy-five of the 78 samples in which the arsenic concentration was >0.125 μg/L had arsenic concentrations less than 1.0 μg/50 (Figure four). Figure 5 plots the individual information points representing one,200 effluent samples as a role of the number of liters filtered. Just iii of the ane,200 effluent samples had a measureable arsenic level between 2.125 μg/L and 2.375 μg/Fifty, well below the EPA MCL of ten μg/Fifty.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms893330f5.jpg

The arsenic concentration in the 1,200 filtered samples is presented as individual data points as a function of the liters filtered (measured in 1 L aliquots). 1,197 of the 1,200 samples tested were <1 μg/Fifty.

iii.three ZeroWater® Filter: Arsenic removal from distilled water

Considering chlorine and some of the salts in the h2o obtained from the public h2o supply used to make the arsenic solutions described above may influence the efficacy of the ZeroWater® filter, the next prepare of experiments was conducted to examine the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove either 100 μg/L of Equally⁺³ or 100 μg/Fifty of Equally^+v from distilled water. The ZeroWater® filter reduced both As⁺³ and As^+v from 100 μg/50 to levels below the detection limit of 0.05 μg/50 (n=3 for the Equally⁺³ and the As^+five solutions).

3.4 ZeroWater® Filter: Arsenic removal from well h2o

Many of the ions in well water, for example iron, manganese, phosphate, silica and sulfate may influence the efficacy of the ZeroWater® filter. Therefore, the last set up of experiments was conducted to examine the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic from water collected from private wells in New Hampshire. In well water sample #1 the arsenic was 42 μg/50 (100% As⁺⁵), and in well h2o sample #two the arsenic was 42 μg/L (97% Every bit⁺⁵, iii% As^+three) (Tabular array 1). The ZeroWater® filter reduced the arsenic to levels beneath the detection limit of 0.05 μg/Fifty in all 50 liters of water from each well that was passed through the filter (Table 1).

Table one

"The concentrations of the major ions in these 2 well h2o samples are representative of the main aquifers supplying potable groundwater to the New Hampshire population (https://nh.water.usgs.gov/project/nawqa/data_gw.htm)"

	As	Si	S	P	Atomic number 26	Mn
Well #1	42 μg/L	11,262 μg/L	7,436 μg/L	16.iv μg/L	551.5 μg/L	8.9 μg/L
Well #ii	42 μg/50	seven,700 μg/L	23,318 μg/Fifty	3.2 μg/L	4.89 μg/Fifty	159.0 μg/50

4. Discussion

The goal of this report was to test the ability of a set of readily available tabletop water pitcher filters to reduce the arsenic concentration in drinking water. Our goal was to identify tabletop pitcher filters that could be recommended by our Superfund Research Programme and our stakeholders to reduce the arsenic concentration to levels beneath the WHO standard and U.Southward. EPA MCL of 10 μg/L. Nosotros report that just one tabletop water pitcher filter tested, ZeroWater®, reduced the arsenic concentration from 100 μg/L and ten μg/50 to below i μg/L. Moreover, the ZeroWater® h2o pitcher filter likewise reduced the arsenic concentration from 1,000 μg/L to ii.half dozen μg/L, a value well below the EPA MCL of ten μg/L. In addition, the amount and limerick of the total dissolved solids did non have a meaningful touch on on the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove either Asⁱⁱⁱ⁺ or As^v+. Thus, the ZeroWater® pitcher filter is an effective way to remove arsenic from private well drinking h2o and reduces plastic waste associated with bottled water. Moreover, ZeroWater® filters can exist recycled. Hence, the ZeroWater® pitcher filter can be a curt-term solution to reduce exposure to arsenic in drinking water until a POU or a POE system is installed or a relatively low cost option for individuals and families that may not have the resource to buy more expensive POU or POE options.

Our results are in general understanding with data on the ZeroWater® web site (http://www.zerowater.com/, every bit of 2/22/2017) where they report that the ZeroWater® filter removes 99% of As⁺³ and Equally⁺⁵, whereas the Brita filter removes eleven% and 2%, respectively. We confirm the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to reduce the arsenic concentration by 99%, and observed that the Brita filter reduced the arsenic concentration by 22.6% and 28.6% when the influent arsenic concentration is 10 μg/L and 100 μg/L, respectively. Although many h2o pitcher filters are certified under the Water Quality Association (WQA) Gold Seal Product Certification Program and have been tested and certified by the WQA using NSF/ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standards to reduce many metals, including pb, volatile organic compounds, and several pesticides, a search of web sites and peer reviewed publications (PubMed search, February 22, 2017) revealed that none are certified past the WQA or NSF to remove arsenic. Thus, we recommend independent NSF/ANSI testing and certification for arsenic by all manufacturers of tabletop water pitcher filters under a variety of conditions to place those that remove arsenic.

Several limitations of the present study should exist noted. Simply five tabletop water bullpen filters were tested, and in limited conditions (i.east., soft and moderately difficult water, distilled h2o, equal concentrations of As⁺ⁱⁱⁱ and As^+five, Every bit⁺³ alone, As⁺⁵ alone, and water from 2 private wells in New Hampshire). The effectiveness of filtration systems in removing arsenic depends on a variety of factors including the pH, oxygen content, chlorine content, species of arsenic, and the concentration of Si, P, S Mn and Atomic number 26. Thus, it is possible that testing of these 5 filters nether dissimilar conditions may produce different results and that studies on boosted filters may identify other tabletop water pitcher filters that remove arsenic from drinking water. In improver, the well water results reflect the power of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic from water sampled from aquifers in New Hampshire, and non necessarily from other aquifers in the US or other countries that are characterized by higher levels of silica and sulfate. Finally, the adequacy of a bullpen filtering method to come across all cooking and drinking need of a family, especially a large family, and how a bullpen method compares to POU or POE entry systems to reduce arsenic needs to be evaluated.

Tabletop water bullpen filters accept several advantages compared to bottled water as a short-term solution to avoid consuming water contaminated by arsenic. First, the utilize of tabletop filters does non generate as much plastic waste material as bottled water, and some companies, including ZeroWater®, recycle the filter cartridges, thereby reducing waste matter from spent filters. 2d, there is business organization that water in plastic bottles may contain perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBE), phalates and bisphenol A (BPA) and antimony (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/antimony.pdf), all of which have been linked to adverse health furnishings. Third, since ZeroWater® pitchers cost ~$35 USD and the company suggests replacing filter units after filtering 15 gallons^{^ane} (~$15 USD/filter) the cost per gallon (~$one USD/gallon) is similar to the cost of a gallon of bottled water (~$1USD/gallon). The reduced waste material associated with the ZeroWater® filter compared to bottled h2o may reduce barriers to compliance, and thereby reduce the exposure to arsenic in well water (Flanagan et al. 2015b, Smith et al. 2016, Spayd et al. 2015). Like to bottled water the apply of tabular array top water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking and cooking water is an constructive, brusque term solution than tin be utilized until a POU or POE filtration organization is installed.

There are several drawbacks from the employ of tabletop water pitcher filters to remove arsenic, and any contaminant, from drinking water. These include the relatively slow filtration process, the need to refill the pitcher on a regular basis, and the need for regular monitoring and replacement of filters. However, several companies provide email notifications to replace filters and some filters come with the ability to monitor filter efficacy for removal of dissolved solids. Some other potential drawback with the use of tabletop water pitcher filters as a long-term solution to remove arsenic from drinking water is that like bottled h2o, which reduces urinary arsenic by 21%, tabletop filters may non exist equally effective every bit POE or POU systems, which reduce urinary arsenic by ~60% (Flanagan et al. 2015b, Josyula et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2016, Spayd et al. 2015). Boosted studies are required to decide the utility of tabletop water bullpen filters to reduce arsenic exposure compared to POE and POU systems.

We too advise filtering water provided by public water supplies for three major reasons. First, although the Safe Drinking Water Act established in 1974 authorized the U.S. EPA to set health-based guidelines for contaminants in drinking water and regulates the presence of 103 contaminants for water that leaves the treatment plant, water tin can be contaminated at any point on its way to the tap (Lothrop et al. 2015). The recent water crisis in Flintstone, Michigan USA is an fantabulous example in which lead leached from the supply pipes and contaminated the h2o supply and led to pregnant exposure to those who drank the lead contaminated h2o, most notably children who are the nearly at risk for lead poisoning (Bellinger 2016). 2d, despite the Safety Drinking Water Deed for public h2o supplies in the U.S., in 2011 at that place were vii,170 exceedances of the EPA standards affecting ~i,800,000 people (Lothrop et al. 2015). Third, a recent report on 3^rd to 5^th grade children has shown that fifty-fifty low levels of arsenic below the EPA MCL (≥ 5 μg/L compared to < 5 μg/L) was associated with reduced IQ too as decreased perceptible reasoning, working memory, and verbal comprehension (Wasserman et al. 2014). Appropriately, the only way to know what is in both public water supplies at the tap and well water is to examination the water, and, if warranted, drinkable bottled water or water filtered using an effective tabletop water bullpen filter that removes the contaminant of interest and/or remediate using ane of the approaches bachelor including anion exchange, adsorptive media or reverse osmosis systems (Smith et al. 2016).

5. Conclusions

In this study, we take tested the power of five relatively cheap and readily available tabletop water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from water. We report that one tabletop water pitcher filter tested, ZeroWater®, reduced the arsenic concentration from x μg/L and 100 μg/L to below 0.05 μg/50 It also reduced the arsenic concentration from well water samples obtained in NH containing 42 μg/L of arsenic to beneath 0.05 μg/L, and from h2o containing 1,000 μg/L of arsenic to 2.vi μg/L, a value below the EPA MCL level of 10 μg/L. If properly used and maintained, the ZeroWater® water pitcher filter is a cost effective, brusque term solution to remove arsenic from drinking water and it eliminates plastic waste associated with bottled h2o. In addition, the ZeroWater® pitcher filter is an choice for individuals and families that may not have the resource to purchase more expensive POU and POE options.

Highlights

Arsenic contamination of drinking water is a serious threat to public wellness.
We identify a filter that reduces arsenic from 1,000 μg/L to beneath the MCL.
The filter is a short-term solution to remove arsenic from well water.
The filter is a cost-effective way to remove arsenic from well water.

Acknowledgments

Funding Source

The NIEHS P42-ES007373 funded this study. The NIEHS was not involved in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, in writing the study or in the conclusion to submit the commodity for publication.

We give thanks Celia Chen, Kathrin Lawlor, Laurie Rardin, and Shannon Rogers for reading the manuscript and providing valuable comments. Nosotros also give thanks Joseph Ayotte (United States Geological Survey) for assisting with identification and collection of the well h2o samples. The NIEHS (grant number P42-ES007373) funded this study.

ABBREVIATIONS

U.Southward. EPA	United States Ecology Protection Agency
POU	point of use
POE	indicate of entry
ICP-MS	inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
SEM	standard error of the hateful
PFOA	perfluorooctanoic acid
PDBE	polybrominated diphenyl ethers
BPA	bisphenol A
NIST	National Institute of Standards and Technology
WQA	Water Quality Association
ANSI	American National Standards Institute
USD	U.s. Dollars

Footnotes

¹Nosotros tested the ability of the ZeroWater® filter to remove arsenic from 100 50 (26.4 gallons) of h2o, a volume that exceeds the manufactures suggestion that filters exist replaced after filtering xv gallons. Information technology is non our intention or recommendation that the filter exist used to remove arsenic from more 15 gallons of water.

CONFLICT OF Interest

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Writer Contributions

All authors contributed to the experimental pattern and analysis of data and the manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given blessing to the final version of the manuscript.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before information technology is published in its concluding citable course. Please note that during the product process errors may exist discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

Bellinger DC. Lead Contamination in Flintstone--An Abject Failure to Protect Public Wellness. Due north Engl J Med. 2016;374(12):1101–1103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Carlin DJ, Naujokas MF, Bradham KD, Cowden J, Heacock Chiliad, Henry HF, Lee JS, Thomas DJ, Thompson C, Tokar EJ, Waalkes MP, Birnbaum LS, Suk WA. Arsenic and Environmental Wellness: State of the Science and Future Enquiry Opportunities. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(seven):890–899. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
CEB . Water Quality: An Introduction. Spring Scientific discipline + Business Media; New York, NY: 2000. [Google Scholar]
Flanagan SV, Marvinney RG, Johnston RA, Yang Q, Zheng Y. Broadcasting of well water arsenic results to homeowners in Central Maine: influences on mitigation behavior and continued risks for exposure. Sci Total Environ. 2015a;505:1282–1290. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Flanagan SV, Marvinney RG, Zheng Y. Influences on domestic well water testing behavior in a Key Maine area with frequent groundwater arsenic occurrence. Sci Full Environ. 2015b;505:1274–1281. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Josyula AB, McClellen H, Hysong TA, Kurzius-Spencer M, Poplin GS, Sturup S, Burgess JL. Reduction in urinary arsenic with bottled-water intervention. J Health Popul Nutr. 2006;24(3):298–304. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lothrop N, Wilkinson ST, Verhougstraete Yard, Sugeng A, Loh MM, Klimecki West, Beamer PI. Home Water Treatment Habits and Effectiveness in a Rural Arizona Community. Water (Basel) 2015;vii(3):1217–1231. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sarkar A, Paul B. The global menace of arsenic and its conventional remediation - A critical review. Chemosphere. 2016;158:37–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Smith AE, Lincoln RA, Paulu C, Simones TL, Caldwell KL, Jones RL, Backer LC. Assessing arsenic exposure in households using bottled water or bespeak-of-use treatment systems to mitigate well water contamination. Sci Total Environ. 2016;544:701–710. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sorg TJ, Chen Every bit, Wang L. Arsenic species in drinking water wells in the United states of america with high arsenic concentrations. Water Res. 2014;48:156–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Spayd SE, Robson MG, Buckley BT. Whole-business firm arsenic water treatment provided more effective arsenic exposure reduction than point-of-use water treatment at New Bailiwick of jersey homes with arsenic in well h2o. Sci Full Environ. 2015;505:1361–1369. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stanton BA, Caldwell K, Congdon CB, Disney J, Donahue M, Ferguson E, Flemings E, Golden M, Guerinot ML, Highman J, James K, Kim C, Lantz RC, Marvinney RG, Mayer G, Miller D, Navas-Acien A, Nordstrom DK, Postema S, Rardin Fifty, Rosen B, SenGupta A, Shaw J, Stanton E, Susca P. MDI Biological Laboratory Arsenic Summit: Approaches to Limiting Human being Exposure to Arsenic. Curr Environ Wellness Rep. 2015;2(3):329–337. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wasserman GA, Liu X, Loiacono NJ, Kline J, Factor-Litvak P, van Geen A, Mey JL, Levy D, Abramson R, Schwartz A, Graziano JH. A cross-exclusive study of well water arsenic and child IQ in Maine schoolchildren. Environ Health. 2014;13(1):23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zheng Y, Ayotte JD. At the crossroads: Hazard assessment and reduction of health risks from arsenic in private well waters of the northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. Sci Total Environ. 2015;505:1237–1247. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]