Water quality report Qs

[Backfromthedead]

So i decided to look up my most current local water quality report. Got me thinking about some things and i wonder if anyone else has ever looked into it.

So im familiar with chloramine and fluoride and their acceptable levels, but not so much with haloacetic acids and trihalomethanes. What is considered high for these contaminants? I know we're talking parts per billion here but a quick google search has taught me that these are pretty nasty chemicals.

Would a water conditioner eliminate these byproducts as well as chloramine? Itd be interesting to know if comparably high levels affect our fishes health in the long run.

 

[dan518]

My understanding is not many water conditioners will remove alot of these substances. I use a HMA filter as I get high pesticides at certain times of the year. Is that your full water report, this is what we get in the uk.

 

[Backfromthedead]

My understanding is not many water conditioners will remove alot of these substances. I use a HMA filter as I get high pesticides at certain times of the year. Is that your full water report, this is what we get in the uk.

View attachment 1368107

View attachment 1368108

That is quite detailed. Yeah thats the whole thing. I suspect the detail of water quality reports are determined by local government. Wouldnt be surprised if other states have more thorough reports.

Lots of different units there. Wonder what the conversion is ppm to micrograms/liters...

Edit: nevermind i just read the footnote...now im seeing the advantages of the metric system.

 

[duanes]

One of the main reasons most water treatment facilities use chloramine, is because the production of trihalomethane is much lower from it, compared to the use of straight (free) chlorine as a disinfectant.
Trihalomethane are the result of chlorines oxidizing of organic material in water.
Most studies concentrate on the carcinogenic effects of trihalomethane on humans, yes are linked to cancer. Without water treatment though, one may die much earlier and faster of acute water bourne diseases.
At the water supplier where I used to work, average Trihalomethane was 0.087, because Lake Michigan water in that area is very low in organics, so I never worried about them.
I doubt in todays political climate, if someone asked for a monetary grant to do research the effects of trihalomethanes on fish, that they'd get much traction. It seems hard enough to get natural waters protected from organics being dumped in them every day, and regs actually seem to be lessening, so I would expect THMs to be going up, instead of down as long as this trend continues.

I doubt there is anything commercially available to remove them.
Foam fractionation might be of some use, but testing for THMs is an expensive process, and not available to individuals without a computerized spectrometer, so how would you know if fractionation was working or not? It is said to remove THM precursors in raw water.
Research for drinking water has shown Ozonation may be of some help, and my former water plant, we used ozonation as a first part of the treatment process, one reason why our THMs may have been low.

 

[Backfromthedead]

One of the main reasons most water treatment facilities use chloramine, is because the production of trihalomethane is much lower from it, compared to the use of straight (free) chlorine as a disinfectant.
Trihalomethane are the result of chlorines oxidizing of organic material in water.
Most studies concentrate on the carcinogenic effects of trihalomethane on humans, yes are linked to cancer. Without water treatment though, one may die much earlier and faster of acute water bourne diseases.
At the water supplier where I used to work, average Trihalomethane was 0.087, because Lake Michigan water in that area is very low in organics, so I never worried about them.
I doubt in todays political climate, if someone asked for a monetary grant to do research the effects of trihalomethanes on fish, that they'd get much traction. It seems hard enough to get natural waters protected from organics being dumped in them every day, and regs actually seem to be lessening, so I would expect THMs to be going up, instead of down as long as this trend continues.

I doubt there is anything commercially available to remove them.
Foam fractionation might be of some use, but testing for THMs is an expensive process, and not available to individuals without a computerized spectrometer, so how would you know if fractionation was working or not? It is said to remove THM precursors in raw water.
Research for drinking water has shown Ozonation may be of some help, and my former water plant, we used ozonation as a first part of the treatment process, one reason why our THMs may have been low.

Thanks that answers a lot. So your thm levels are directly dependent on both nitrates and chloramine, but specifically limited by chloramine?

 

[duanes]

Not necessarily just nitrate, but all organic compounds the chlorine would oxidize, anything from free floating algae, and detritus, to fertilizer to plankton, and any living or once living thing it reacted to.
Because of the zebra and quagga muscle invasion in lake Michigan we had a direct chlorine line to our intake 1 mile out, and 50 ft deep, and 50 ft from the bottom in the lake, which prevented the mussels from living and gaining a foot hold in the intake pipe.

 

[squint]

What is considered high for these contaminants? I know we're talking parts per billion here but a quick google search has taught me that these are pretty nasty chemicals.

MCL is the legal limit. MCLG is what would be nice to achieve. The next two columns are what levels you have.

 

[skjl47]

Hello; I try to read threads such as this so as to gain some insight about tank water. I know just enough to get into trouble and would like to learn more. I have tried to keep tract in my head but not always can. You have made many very useful posts over time. If you ever get the time, energy and ambition I think it would be a great boon to the hobby if you wrote a paper and posted it on this forum about water chemistry from the point of view of a fish keeper.
I was corrected a few days ago by another knowledgeable member when I suggested increased WC during a bacterial bloom as I had not taken into account pH.
Just a thought and no I do not have any concept of how much work it might be. I also do not blame you if this notion is not your cup of tea.

You have a body of good work on this forum as it is.

Not necessarily just nitrate, but all organic compounds the chlorine would oxidize, anything from free floating algae, and detritus, to fertilizer to plankton, and any living or once living thing it reacted to.

 

[Backfromthedead]

Not necessarily just nitrate, but all organic compounds the chlorine would oxidize, anything from free floating algae, and detritus, to fertilizer to plankton, and any living or once living thing it reacted to.
Because of the zebra and quagga muscle invasion in lake Michigan we had a direct chlorine line to our intake 1 mile out, and 50 ft deep, and 50 ft from the bottom in the lake, which prevented the mussels from living and gaining a foot hold in the intake pipe.

Oh i see. So if a reservoir is part of a healthy ecosystem functioning at full carrying capacity we would see, in theory, higher thm? That seems screwy. The healthier the environment, the more harmful the drinking water is.

What about RODI? doesnt that completely eradicate any contaminants in water?

 

[duanes]

If a surface water supply comes from a eutrophic (nutrient rich) body of water, and the water company uses straight chlorine, you would see more THMs, than if the surface water comes from an oligotrophic (nutrient poor) lake (like Lake Superior, or Michigan) and uses Chloramine as a disinfectant, there will be less THMs.
If the intake is further out in the lake, and deep, there will generally be less organic material than if the intake is closer to shore, and in a shallow area.
It can also be seasonally, and agriculturally influenced (especially in the case when a river is a drinking water supply source, this is common).
In general, ground water often contains fewer organics, although the trade off might be higher inorganic compounds.
RODI has its own problems for aquarium use, because it is poor in minerals the fish need, (and we need for drinking).