Arsenic and Drinking Water

 H2o Baja has a lab here in Cabo San Lucas.  After looking at several options for testing for total coliform and E. coli, we decided to use the Presence / Absense Coliform test.  Our supplier for the testing supplies is Hach Company, a world leader in testing equipment.  We have a very accurate German incubator and all the necessary apparatus to conduct many essential tests for drinking water quality as well as wastewater. At the moment, we are testing drinking water for total coliform and E. coli at no charge, so there is no reason not to stop in with your fresh water sample (under 2 hours is best).

The Presence-Absence Coliform Test for Monitoring Drinking Water Quality

EUGENE W. RICE, MS

EDWIN E. GELDREICH, MS

ELEANOR J. READ, MS

Mr. Rice and Mr. Geldreich are with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Rice is a Microbiologist in the Microbiological Treatment Branch, and Mr. Geldreich is EPA Senior Microbiologist. Ms. Read is a Senior Statistician with the Computer Sciences Corp., Cincinnati, OH.

Synopsis

The concern for improved monitoring of the sanitary quality of drinking water has prompted interest in alternative methods for the detection of total coliform bacteria. A simplified qualitative presence-absence test has been proposed as an alternate procedure for detecting coliform bacteria in potable water.

In this paper data from four comparative studies were analyzed to compare the recovery of total coliform bacteria from drinking water using the presence-absence test, the multiple fermentation tube procedure, and the membrane filter technique. The four studies were of water samples taken from four different geographic areas of the United States: Hawaii, New England (Vermont and New Hampshire), Oregon and Pennsylvania. The analysis of the results of these studies were compared, based upon the number of positive samples detected by each method. Combined recoveries showed the presence/absence test detected significantly higher numbers of samples with coliforms than either the fermentation tube or membrane filter methods, P< 0.01.

The fermentation tube procedure detected significantly more positive samples than the membrane filter technique, P<0.01. Based upon the analysis of the combined database, it is clear that the Presence-Absence test is as sensitive as the current coliform methods for the examination of potable water. The presence-absence test offers a viable alternative to water utility companies that elect to use the frequency-of-occurrence approach for compliance monitoring.

IN THE UNITED STATES, the total coliform group of bacteria serve as the principal microbiological parameter for determining the sanitary quality of drinking water. The National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations require that all public water supplies be monitored for coliform bacteria with the use of either the multiple fermentation tube (FT) procedure or the membrane filter (MF) technique (1). Proposed changes to existing regulations call for amending the recommended maximum contaminant level for coliform bacteria to 0 organisms per 100 ml and adopting a frequency-of-occurrence concept for compliance monitoring (2). This type of moni- 54 Public Health Report monitoring system would be used to establish a coliform compliance limit based on the fraction of samples containing coliform bacteria during a given period (3). This frequency-of-occurrence protocol, the presence-absence concept, would be used in place of the current system wherein compliance is based upon either the arithmetic average of coliform bacteria detected in water samples by the MF technique or the percentage of positive FTs found over a 30-day period. Such data can be obtained from conventional coliform tests (MF or FT) by translating any coliform count or positive tube results into a coliform occurrence. The concern for improved monitoring, especially for small water systems, has prompted interest in the use of apresence-absence (PA) procedure as an alternative method for detecting coliform bacteria in drinking water to determine compliance with a regulation based on the presence-absence concept.

One of the major concerns of monitoring drinking water for coliforms is to ensure that microbial flora or the different substances found in drinking water do not influence the results of detection methods. A search of the scientific literature indicates a paucity of information concerning the effect of geographic differences on coliform monitoring.

In this study, we explore the effect of geographic differences on the PA test in terms of coliform detection compared with MF and FT methods now

in use. The use of a simplified presence-absence approach for examining potable water was first proposed by Weiss and Hunter (4). A presence-absence procedure has been used extensively in the Province of Ontario, Canada (5), and has been compared with the MF technique (6). A PA procedure is currently listed as a tentative method for analyzing drinking water samples in “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater” (7). The PA test, unlike conventional methods, is a qualitative rather than a quantitative procedure. The procedure is a basic modification of the FT method and uses the same verification procedure. Unlike the FT procedure, 100 ml of sample are routinely analyzed. The procedure consists of inoculating the water sample into a bottle containing the appropriate concentration of PA medium (7) and a fermentation tube for gas entrapment. The bottle is incubated for 24 to 48 hours at 35 Celsius (C) and inspected for acid and gas production. If gas is noted in the fermentation tube or an acid reaction (as indicated by a color change of the indicator dye) is observed, a small inoculum of the culture is transferred to a tube of brilliant green lactose broth for confirmation. The production of gas in the confirmatory medium within 24 to 48 hours at 35C is related to coliform occurrence. The test is completed within a maximum time of 96 hours, and the results are reported as coliform present or absent.

The implementation of any new procedure for compliance monitoring requires the accumulation of a sufficient database to ensure that the procedure is comparable to the currently accepted methods. These data are especially important for the monitoring of potable water, where the vast majority of samples contain few or no coliforms (8). It is imperative, therefore, that any new procedure be able to detect very low numbers of coliform bacteria at a level of sensitivity equal to that of the procedures currently being employed. Recent research findings have indicated that the PA test is more sensitive than either the FT or MF procedures (9,10), while others have found the PA test to be at least as sensitive as the FT and MF procedures (8,11). The objective of our investigation was to evaluate the coliform data from four studies conducted in different geographic areas to determine the equivalency of the standard PA test with the conventional MF and FT procedures. Only those studies using currently acceptable protocols for coliform detection (7) are included in this analysis.

Discussion

The analysis of the combined database shows the PA test to be very efficient for coliform detection in drinking water, with a level of recovery significantly higher than the other methods. Combined data show the PA test detected significantly more positive samples than either of the two standard coliform methods (FT and MF).

We conclude that the PA test possesses the sensitivity required for the detection of total coliform bacteria in potable water samples. This study indicates that the PA test is at least as sensitive as the current standard methods for detecting coliforms and that this evaluation holds true in various geographic regions in the United States. This test offers a viable alternative to water utility companies that elect to use the frequency-of-occurrence approach for compliance monitoring.

References …….

1. Environmental Protection Agency: National primary drinking water regulations. Federal Register 40: 59566, No. 248, pt. 141, Dec. 24, 1975. January-February 1989, Vol. 104, No. 1 57

2. Environmental Protection Agency: Drinking water; national primary drinking water regulation; total coliforms; proposed rule. Federal Register 52: 42224, No.212, pt. 141 and 142, Nov. 3, 1987.

3. Pipes, W. O., and Christian, R. R.: Estimation of mean coliform densities of water distribution system. J Am Water Works Assoc 76:60-64, November 1984.

4. Weiss, J. E., and Hunter, C. A.: Simplified bacteriological examination of water. J Am Water Works Assoc 31:707-713, April 1939.

5. Clark, J. A.: A presence-absence (P-A) test providing sensitive and inexpensive detection of coliforms, fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci in municipal drinking water supplies. Can J Microbiol 14:13-18, January 1968.

6. Clark, J. A.: The influence of increasing numbers of non-indicator organisms upon the detection of indicator organisms by the membrane filter and presence-absence tests. Can J Microbiol 26:827-832, July 1980.

7. Greenberg, A. E., Trussell, R. R., and Clesceri, L. S., editors: Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, Ed. 16. American Public Health Association, 1985.

8. Pipes, W. O., Minnigh, H. A., Moyer, B., and Trog, M. A.: Comparison of Clark’s presence-absence test and the membrane filter method for coliform detection in potable water samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 52:439-443, September 1986.

9. Jacobs, N. J., et al.: Comparison of membrane filter, multiple fermentation tube, and presence-absence techniques for detecting total coliforms in small community water systems. Appl Environ Microbiol 51:1007-1012, May 1986.

10. Caldwell, B. A., and Morita, R. Y.: Sampling regimes and bacteriological tests for coliform detection in groundwater. Project Report EPA/600/287/083. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1987.

11. Fujioka, R., Kungskulniti, N., and Nakasone, S.: Evaluation of the presence-absence test for coliforms and the membrane filtration method for heterotrophic bacteria. In Proceedings of the Water Quality Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, Portland, OR, Nov. 16-20, 1986, pp. 271-279.

12. Fleiss, J. L.: Statistical methods for rates and proportions, Ed. 2. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981.

13. Rice, E. W., et al.: Comparison of media for recovery of total coliform bacteria from chemically treated water. Environ Microbiol 53:1571-1573, July 1987.

Dangers In Your Water

Susan Ryan-Vollmar

Whether you live in a city, the suburbs, or the country, your drinking water may contain dangerous pollutants. Here’s how to clean them out.

IN THE 1970s the residents of Woburn, Mass., were suffering from a health epidemic. The rate of childhood leukemia was four times higher than average, and adult residents suffered from unusually high rates of health disorders, such as cardiac arrhythmia, and liver, nervous system, and immune system dysfunction. People began to suspect there was something wrong with their drinking water, which was often discolored and smelled like rotten eggs. State health officials uncovered unusually high levels of organic solvent chemicals but blamed the results on faulty test equipment. Then, in 1979, barrels containing hazardous chemicals were discovered near two municipal wells. The water was tested again and extremely high levels of the carcinogen tetrachloroethylene were detected. Within days, the wells were capped.

Although an extreme case, water contamination is not uncommon. More than 45 million people a year drink publicly supplied water that fails to meet standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And according to the Centers for Control (CDC), nearly I million people get sick from drinking contaminated water each year, about 1,000 of those cases are fatal.

Fortunately there are ways to protect yourself. First, find out what, if any, contaminants are present in your water and decide whether or not they pose a risk to you. Once you know that you can buy a water filter designed to remove those particular pollutants. Since the three most popular types of filters–carafe filters, faucet filters, and reverse-osmosis filter systems–vary considerably in price and power, we’ve put together a first-time buyer’s guide so you can choose which is most suitable for you. Here’s how to get started.

Step 1: Testing the Waters

Home testing kits are available, but they may be unreliable and do not test for everything. Your best option is to go through a professional testing lab. The EPA has a safe drinking water hot line (800-426-4791) where operators can direct you to a state-certified agency that provides fists of local testing laboratories. Testing prices range from $10 for one contaminant to $350 for packages. (We can test your water in our lab)

Step 2: Weighing the Risks

The types of contaminants likely to surface in your water depend on where you live, explains Erik Olson, a drinking water specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based nonprofit organization. Typically, if you live in a big city, you should be concerned about chlorine byproducts in water, as well as lead and microbial contaminants. If you live in a rural or suburban area, where water is supplied by municipal and private wells, you may have nitrates, pesticides, and bacterial and fecal matter in your drinking water. All can pose serious health hazards.

These are the most common contaminants:

CHLORINE BY PRODUCTS

What they are: Chlorine mixed with decaying plant material

Why they’re there: Many municipal water systems add chlorine to kill microorganisms.

What they do: At its most benign, chlorine can make your water taste like it came from a swimming pool. But chlorine can also combine with decaying vegetation to form trihalomethanes (THMs), which cause 10,000 cases of bladder and rectal cancer each year, says the Environmental Working Group, a public interest organization. And THMs don’t enter the body through drinking water alone. If you shower with THM-contaminated water, you can easily inhale them. A well ventilated bathroom can cut the inhalation risk in the shower, and specially-made shower filters can remove it completely.

Who’s most at risk: A new study, conducted by the California Department of Health Services studied 5,144 pregnant women and found women who drank at least five glasses of cold tap water per day containing THMs (specifically, bromodichloromethanes (BDCM)), had more miscarriages; 16.4 percent compared with 6.1 percent for those who had low levels of BDCMs in their tap water.

LEAD

What it is: A toxic metal

Why it’s there: Household water may contain lead that has been leached from plumbing joints by corrosive water with a high pH content. Lead can also enter water supplies from natural and industrial sod deposits and brass alloy faucets.

What it does: Lead has adverse affects on virtually every system in the body, according to the CDC. Elevated levels of lead in adults can increase blood pressure and impair hearing. But children under the age of five are the most vulnerable to lead’s noxious effects; lead contamination can severely delay their mental and physical development.

Who’s most at risk: People living in older houses face risk from significant corrosion of lead service connections and the lead solder used to join copper pipes.

MICROBIAL ORGANISMS

What they are: Bacteria and parasites

Why they’re there: Wells situated near livestock or septic systems can become contaminated with fecal matter that contains microbial organisms such as giardia and cryptosporidium. Urban water supplies that have been successfully treated for parasites may become recontaminated when the water passes through plumbing where organisms five along the walls. (Broken water lines can allow contaminants to enter the municipal water supply. Common in Mexico)

What they do: Giardia and cryptosporidium cause giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis, whose symptoms include severe stomach cramps, diarrhea, and dehydration. In 1993, an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis killed nearly 100 Milwaukee residents and made more than 400,000 others sick.

Who’s most at risk: Pregnant women, young children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems, such as those who are HIV-positive or undergoing chemotherapy, are particularly vulnerable to cryptosporidium. The CDC recommends that all vulnerable people either boil or filter their water.

NITRATES

What they are: Inorganic chemicals

Why they’re there: Nitrogen fertilizers. manure, and sewage seep through the soil and into water supplies.

What they do: Nitrates in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia, also known as “blue baby syndrome.” The sickness occurs when infants are fed formula made with contaminated water; when a baby drinks and digests the formula, ingested nitrates are converted into nitrites that can latch onto red blood cells and block oxygen from getting to the baby’s brain. The baby will start to suffocate and turn blue.

Who’s most at risk: Babies and pregnant women, who can pass it on to their fetuses, are most at risk. But in all adults, nitrate-contaminated drinking water can lead to hypertension, gastric problems, and enlargement of the thyroid. When mixed with other chemicals, nitrates have been linked to 15 types of cancer, including bladder, stomach, brain, kidney lung, and liver.

PESTICIDES

What they are: Agricultural weed killers such as atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, and alachlor

Why they’re there: They make their way into wells when they drain off lawns and fields.

What they do: Many of these pesticides cause cancer, and sonic have acute effects on the nervous system, especially in young children.

Who’s most at risk: “The shallower the well and the more poorly protected the well, the more likely you are to have those types of contaminants,” says Olson. Data collected by Midwestern state agencies in 1996 found that 3 million people were drinking tap water polluted by five or more pesticides.

Step 3: Eliminating the Dangers

Today’s technology lets you remove almost anything from your water with filters. Filters utilize water pressure or gravity to force water through an obstacle of three filter screens. But all filters are not created equal. The three main systems–carafe filters, faucet filters, and reverse osmosis systems–vary greatly in effectiveness and cost.

There are two things to keep in mind when buying a filter. For starters, different brands of even the same type of filter remove different contaminants, so read the manufacturer’s claims to determine which system matches your needs. Second, be sure to look for filters that are certified by NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) International or the Water Quality Association. These consumer watchdog associations test filters and offer their seal of approval only if a manufacturer’s claims are met. Next, determine your cost requirements. Options range from as little as $30 for a carafe filter to $1,000 for a reverse-osmosis system. And be aware that these initial costs not include maintenance, such as the cost of replacement filters.

Here’s a breakdown of the three main filtering systems. We start with the simplest:

CARAFE FILTERS

What they remove: Lead, chlorine, and a variety of sediments

What they don’t remove: Nitrates, microbial organisms, or pesticides

How they work: After running tap water through the top, particles are captured by the filter screens or absorbed into an activated carbon filter.

Cost: $30. Replacement filters cost $5 to $8 each. The cost of filtering your water, based on the frequency of changing filters, is about 23 cents per gallon.

Care: The filter must be replaced every one to three months.

Notes: Carafe filters come in pitcher or dispenser form and are the easiest way to filter water. They can be stored on your countertop or in your refrigerator.

FAUCET FILTERS

What they remove: Lead, chlorine, and cryptosporidium

What they don’t remove: Models vary, so read each label to determine what it won’t remove.

How they work: Faucet filters come in three types. The first attaches directly onto the faucet, the second rests on the countertop and is attached to the faucet through a hose, and the third directly connects with the cold-water line under a sink. Activated carbon filters are used in combination with polyethylene for more effective filtering.

Cost: $30 to $300. Depending on the model, replacement filters cost from $12 to $200. They process water at a cost of 1 to 8 cents per gallon.

Care: Filters are replaced once or twice a year. If not, they can become overloaded and dump months’ worth of built-up contaminants back into your water. “Sometimes people get misled into thinking that just because they’ve bought a filter, their water will be clean forever,” says Joseph Harrison, technical director of the Water Quality Association, a trade association for water improvement. “There’s no water-filter technology that’s that good.”

Notes: Most faucet filters can be installed by any do-it-yourselfer, although some under-the-counter models require a plumber’s services.

REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS

What they remove: Chlorine, lead, nitrates, organic chemicals, microbial organisms. pesticides, and even dissolvable substances, like salt. (You will still need to add a UV light for proper disinfection)

What they don’t remove: A heavy duty system can remove almost anything, even dissolved gases, such as radon.

How they work: Water is flushed through two carbon filters and a synthetic semi-permeable membrane to remove all pollutants.

Cost: $700 to $1,000. Carbon filter replacements cost about $50 each and a synthetic screen costs about $100. Filtering costs about 10 cents per gallon.

Care: The two carbon filters need to be replaced once a year and the synthetic membrane screen should be replaced every three to five years.

Notes: This will take up most of your under-the-counter space and, by flushing out the contaminants, it wastes three to five gallons of water for every one gallon of purified water.

RELATED ARTICLE: IS BOTTLED WATER BETTER?

WHEN WE BUY BOTTLED WATER. We think we’re getting clean water. But think again. In 1991 a congressional committee announced its finding that one-third of all bottled water is nothing more than stylishly packaged municipal water So how can we know whether that $1-a-gallon bottled water is truly sale to drink?

“We don’t,” says Erik Olson, a drinking water specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There are regulations for bottled water, NA they have some gaps in them. Basically, there is very little published information available on the quality of bottled water.”

Considered a food product, bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which requires only that the label identify the source of the water. Manufacturers need not list what’s in it.

(Do not forget the tremendous environmental problems caused by plastic bottles. Don’t buy bottled water. Fill your own stainless steel bottles. We stock them)

HERE’S A DECODER FOR WHAT YOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE ON LABELS:

ARTESIAN WATER: Water drawn from a confined aquifer, a water-bearing underground layer of sand or rock

DRINKING WATER: Tap water which has undergone little, if any, treatment

MINERAL WATER: Water that contains only natural minerals from an underground source (contains riot less than 250 parts per million of total dissolved solids)

SPARKLING WATER: Naturally carbonated water

SPRING WATER: Water taken from an underground source that flows up to the earth’s surface

PURIFIED WATER: Water from which all contaminants have been filtered

Call the International Bottled Water Association at 800-WATER-11 for more information.

RELATED ARTICLE: RESOURCES:

IF YOU TEST your drinking water and find one of the five most common contaminants, report it to your town’s local health board on your state’s environmental protection department. For more information on water safety, call:

* CLEAN WATER ACTION (202) 895-0420

* NSF INTERNATIONAL (800) NSF-8010

* NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (212) 727-2700

* U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP (202) 546-9707

* WATER QUALITY ASSOCIATION (800) 749-0234

Susan Ryan-Vollmar is a writer living in Somerville, Massachusetts.

COPYRIGHT 1998 Weider Publications
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

We have the same problem with terrorists, they are mixed in with the good guys and it is hard to detect and kill them without harming anyone one else. But, we have one big advantage. We can use “racial profiling” looking for pathogens without fear of the ACLU. So there, Nadine Strossen!! Yep, we can test for “Indicator Organisms” such as coloform bacteria.

Coliforms are bacteria that are always present in the digestive tracts of animals, including humans, and are found in their wastes. They are also found in plant and soil material. Fecal contamination can cause serous water pollution problems, but it is not practical to test for pathogens in every water sample taken. Coliforms are relatively easy to identify, are usually present in greater numbers than dangerous pathogens and respond to the environment, wastewater treatment and water treatment similarly to many pathogens. Because of this, testing for coliform bacteria can be a reasonable indication of whether other pathogenic bacteria are present.

The most basic tests for bacterial contamination in a water supply are for total coliform, fecal coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli):

• Total coliforms include bacteria that are found in the soil, water that has been influenced by surface water and in human or animal waste. Why does this matter? Well, if your water tests positive for total coliform, there is a good chance that there is some breach in the integrity of your water supply. Broken pipes are notorious for allowing contamination (as from a cow pasture) caused by runoff to enter your water supply.
• Fecal coliforms are a group from the total coliforms that are found in the gut and feces of warm-blooded animals. They are considered to be a more accurate indicator of human or animal waste than total coliforms.
• Escherichia coli (E. coli) is the major species in the fecal coliform group and is generally not found growing and reproducing in the environment. So, it is considered to be the best indicator of fecal pollution and the possible presence of pathogens.

What all this means is that testing your water is the only way to know if your water is safe. You can’t tell by the look, taste or smell of the water if disease-causing organisms are in it.

It is pretty basic, have your water tested for bacteria at least once a year and see what you’ve got. The best time to test is the hurricane season or wet season. That?s when you have the greatest risk of coliform contamination. If the results show total coliforms, it’s time to consult an expert to find out what?s going on.

Those of you that are only here part of the year are more likely to have problems. Your plumbing, water heater, dish washer, carbon filters (carbon is food for bacteria), etc., are perfect places for bacteria to multiply while you are away, so when you return home, at the very least flush your pipes out.

Most water problems can be easily solved. So don’t put it off,  test your water. Why bathe in water you wouldn’t drink?

We are all concerned about drinking water. All but a few have installed some type of water purification system in their home. Even so, many people still buy bottled water because they don’t really trust their system. It was probably installed when the home was built and who knows what it is or  if it even works works.

I have discussed various methods of drinking water purification. We already know that reverse osmosis systems remove beneficial minerals producing acidic water, and require changing membranes and filters as needed. Of course the biggest negative of a reverse osmosis system is that they waste so much water. For every gallon they produce, 3 to 5 gallons go down the drain. It is ecologically irresponsible to waste that much water in a desert. You could flush your toilet two times with the water you waste making one gallon of R/O drinking water.

Ultra-Violet (UV) systems work great when they are new, however, they require a yearly lamp change along with filters as well. If they do not have a water-softening device before the UV lens, they become quite ineffective and I wouldn?t drink that water either.

Filtration systems are a good solution. There are many different kinds to suit your needs and your wallet. Some require no filter change for years. Filtration does not strip your drinking water of essential minerals and removes most contaminants. Recent technology has given us ultra-filtration as small as .015 microns. This is so small that it can filter out bacteria, viruses, cysts, etc. It can even filter out anthrax. There are systems that can filter your whole house. These systems can get a little pricey, but you pay for what you get.

There is one thing that none of these systems can do. Can you guess what it is? They cannot provide disinfection all the way to your faucet. When your water leaves your typical purification system, that?s the end of disinfection. Any bugs that make their home in your pipes live on some of the dead or semi-dead carcasses that pass by on the way to your sink or toothbrush.

And as cliche’s go, the best is yet to come! In September of 2001, the FDA approved the application of ozone for disinfecting and sanitizing food and food processing environments. The applications can be in the air or dissolved in water. We are most interested in the ozone in water.

Most people think of ozone as in smog or the ozone layer. Ozone occurs naturally on our planet. The most common source comes from lightning. We all have smelled the fresh sweet odor after a lightning storm. That’s ozone. Ozone also is formed by oxygen reacting with UV rays from the sun. That is responsible for the ozone layer. The ozone layer decreases during the winter and near our two poles because cloud cover blocks the sun’s UV rays. There is some evidence of ozone destruction by fluorocarbons, but my research shows it is still debatable. In any event, don’t stop using your sun block, just in case!

Ozone is the most powerful and effective microbiological control and disinfecting agent available next to fluorine. It kills bacteria 3125 times faster than chlorine. Unlike chlorine, ozone does not leave any chemicals that need to be removed after it disinfects. Ozone breaks down into oxygen.

The list of what ozone can treat is very long. But basically that list consists of bacteria, protozoan, fungus, mold, all known viruses and more. When you combine a good quality filter and an ozone generator, you get a very effective water system that meets the FDA range for bottled water. I would challenge that there is better tasting water.

Another advantage is that ozone water has a distinct smell, so you know your ozone unit is working. Show me another system that can do that! No more worrying if your filer system is functioning. But not to fret, the ozone breaks down very quickly into oxygen, which you cannot smell.

We adapted a state of the art under-the-sink ozone system especially for use in Mexico. It is designed to remove or reduce microscopic particulate matter, chlorine, bacteria, fungi, heavy metals and other inorganic compounds. It also removes musty smells, stale and metallic tastes and odors, and then adds activated oxygen (ozone) as the final step of the process.

As a bonus application, the microbiological killing power of ozone will allow the user to minimize bacterial and viral counts on kitchen sponges, counter-tops, dishes, fruits, fish, vegetables, etc. It will even remove the smell from your fingers after chopping garlic or onions.

Making your own bottled water helps you become a better person by slowing down the filling of our landfills, streets and beaches with plastic bottles. Aren?t you sick of seeing plastic bottles everywhere you go?

Ozone has been protecting our planet long before man came along. It is not just beneficial to our lives; it is essential to our existence. Be sure to Google ozone water and see what is happening in the world of ozone as it relates to health and medicine. It is quite amazing.

Bill Bugg

H2o Baja Water Products

Well, this has been going on for several years now. Several states, including California and Texas have been attempting to get rid of waster softeners. What?s the big deal you may ask? Pure and simple, it is the salt brine discharged into the sewer system and ultimately returning to streams, rivers and the aqua fir.

The WQA and PWQA have been lobbying hard against the ban, as well as filing injunctions with the courts. This is because they are owned and funded by the soft water industry. They finally lost on Nov. 4 to a local referendum by a 63.9% margin. Santa Clarita, CA, will be the first city to successfully put a stop to water softeners beginning Jan. 1, 2009, even though California’s current ”Governator” recently refused to sign the bill even after it was passed by the legislature.

This is really a big deal. Water softeners have been with us for decades. How many remember “Hey, Culligan man!!” from the fifties? Well, the Culligan man”s days are numbered if this trend continues, which I believe it will.

Water softeners served a useful purpose, though not fully understood by most people. While removing minerals, they also added sodium. Drinking water high in sodium is not beneficial, particularly for people with heart or circulatory problems. Plants and lawns don’t do well with sodium either and faucets are eaten up by salt water. This is why many homes had separate cold water lines for drinking and cooking that were not softened.

So what are we to do with all this hard water down here? Water hardness is generally measured in grains per gallon.  Anything over 7 grains is considered hard and our water hardness is around 10.5 grains or very hard. What?s a grain? A grain is equal to the weight of one kernel of wheat. Betcha didn?t know that!!

Hard water has many negative characteristics, although it is very healthy to drink. Minerals, which cause hardness in water, have a wide impact on households. The minerals that make water hard are typically calcium and magnesium. According to Susan Quiring, Texas A&M Extension Housing Specialist, Hard water interferes with almost every cleaning task from laundering and dishwashing to bathing and personal grooming. Clothes laundered in hard water may look dingy and feel harsh and scratchy. Dishes and glasses washed in hard water may be spotted on drying. Hard water may cause a film on glass shower doors, shower walls and bathtubs. Hair washed in hard water may feel sticky and look dull.

Susan adds, “Hard water also affects the performance of household appliances. Researchers at New Mexico State University studied the effects of water quality on the performance of gas and electric residential water heaters. The one-year study measured the energy consumption of six gas and electric residential water heaters in use for 5 to 15 years in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Half of each group used the area’s untreated hard water exclusively. The other half used softened water exclusively. Results of the study showed that water heaters using only hard water consumed considerably more energy than those using only softened water.” According to the study, hard water scale buildup amounted to almost 40 pounds in some water heaters. Scale is a good insulator, so it takes more energy to heat your water, and we all know more energy is more money.

Would you like to know what else that scale buildup does It prevents your UV water disinfection system from working properly if at all. Every manufacturer states that a water softening device MUST be installed before the UV system when the water hardness is over 7 grains. Don?t believe it Read your owner?s manual. Trojan, Sterolite, Pura  and all the rest require one.

We get people in our store all the time looking for replacement UV lamps. When we ask if they have a water-softening device, they get a blank look on their face and answer no. Why do you want a new UV lamp Gringo? Your cool $1250 UV water disinfection system doesn?t work without a water-softening device. Read the specs!!

There are quite a few water softeners in Los Cabos. Many are not functioning anymore and are just taking up space in a garage or equipment room. Rock salt can be hard to find and so are parts and finding someone knowledgeable enough to install them. There are times when the only solution is a water softener and H2o Baja sell and services there own line of softeners, including twin alternating tanks for hotels and large consumers.

Is softened water harmful to plants, lawns and gardens? Softened water is not recommended for watering plants, lawns and gardens due to its sodium content. Care must also be taken that water used in recharging a water softener be disposed through a storm drain or sewer due to its damaging effects. If you are on a septic tank, the logical method of brine disposal is to discharge the brine into the septic tank and soil absorption field where some leaching of sodium salts will occur. Other alternatives include a separate holding tank which could be evacuated by a vacuum truck or a separate disposal field or discharge point that does not affect neighbors’ property.

Bill Bugg

H2O Baja Water Products

“Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It is so named because the spectrum consists of electromagnetic waves with frequencies higher than those that humans identify as the color violet (purple).”

Did you understand that? (Me too!!) Let’s just say it’s electromagnetic radiation and to even put it more simply, UV light as found in nature is part of the radiation received by the Earth from the Sun. By choosing to live in such a sunny place, most of us have experienced the effects of solar UV through sunburn or maybe even skin cancer.

Although the UV spectrum has many other effects, including both beneficial and damaging changes to human health, we are interested in manmade UV and its relationship with water purification. We are going to look at what UV can do for us, what its limitations are and what maintenance is required.

There are lots of UV systems installed in Mexico.. We see that UV on the label and we immediately think “purified drinking water”.  Let?s take a good look at what you”re getting when you purchase an UV unit.

A typical UV unit consists of an UV lamp housed inside a quartz lens. Water passing through the unit is exposed to the invisible radiation created by the UV lamp and in order to disinfect microorganisms the radiation must strike the cell. The UV energy penetrates the outer cell membrane, passes through the cell body and disrupts its DNA preventing reproduction. This is pretty straight forward, but keep in mind that UV does not alter the water chemically; nothing is being added except UV radiation.  Also keep in mind that these sterilized (not dead) microorganisms are not removed from the water and UV disinfection does not remove organics, inorganics or particles in the water.

The UV dose applied to the water determines the degree of deactivation. Common microorganisms have different dosage requirements, so it makes good sense to know What’s in Your Water, so that you know which unit to purchase. Keep in mind that UV does NOT effectively disinfect some organisms (most molds, protozoa and cysts of Giardia and Cryptosporidium) since they require a higher dosage. There are alternative systems such as filtration and ozone that can remove most everything, so be sure to consider them before you make a purchase.

With proper maintenance, it is possible to achieve a 99.9% reduction in bacteria, but be careful with “proper” part. Lamps need to be changed every year, the quartz lens needs to be kept clean. UV dosage needs to be monitored and performance needs to checked with a lab report. In fact, most manufacturers require that a water-softening device  be installed before the UV unit if the hardness is above 7 grains (We have tested hardness as high as 30 grains in Los Cabos) to keep the lens clean of calcium. Check your Owner?s Manual!!

There is always the concern of contaminants in your water which can reduce the transmission of UV light, which reduces the UV dose that reaches the bacteria. The one that we should be most concerned about is turbidity, which are suspended particles that shield bacteria from the UV light and allow them to pass through unaffected. This is why UV disinfection is most effective for treating high clarity water, like reverse osmosis or distilled water.

Be sure to size your UV unit properly by counting the total faucets in your home. The maximum flow rate of your UV system must be sufficient for your home. If you exceed the GPM of your unit, the water will flow through without enough UV exposure to do its job. This is a good time to contact H2O Baja.

One last word about UV; the disinfection takes place inside the quartz lens. Once your water leaves the chamber, there is no more disinfection taking place downstream. (Ozone for example, disinfects all the way into your glass) If just one bacterium gets through it can adhere inside a pipe on its way to your faucet and begin to multiply forming biofilm. What do bacteria eat? Well, bacteria cells are not removed by a UV unit but are converted into pyrogens. Pyrogens are bacterial remains or decaying products of the bacterial cell walls, which produce a rise in body temperature.? Bacteria thrive on pyrogens.

A UV disinfection unit is one tool that can be used to fight bacteria if it is maintained and operated properly, but it is not a magic bullet, which can be installed, forgotten and expected to keep your water bacteria free. Unfortunately, maintenance is a lost art down here and I see many units, which are rusted out and no longer functioning. Be sure to consult with an expert before making your next purchase on water system.

Bill Bugg

H2O Baja Water Products