The byproduct's presence was found approximately 40 years ago, according to researchers, but it wasn't identified until just today because of advancements in analysis methods that allowed them to fully ascertain the chemical's structure. Because it has never been investigated, it may take years to determine whether chloronitramide anion is harmful. In an effort to encourage more research into safety issues, the researchers published their findings in the journal Science on Thursday.
According to the experts, there is no concrete proof that the substance poses a threat, but it does resemble other chemicals that are of concern.
Because it has been found so frequently, they believe it merits investigation. According to one of the study's authors, David Wahman, a research environmental engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency, "it has similarities to other toxic molecules." In ten U.S. chlorinated drinking water systems spread over seven states, we examined 40 samples for it. It was discovered in every sample.
As chloramine deteriorates over time, chloronitramide anion is created. He stated that it is probably present in all drinking water that has been treated using this technique. Questions concerning the possible health consequences of the chemicals used to treat tap water are raised by the possibility that a byproduct with unknown hazards may be so common and elude researchers for for so long.
The study estimates that 113 million Americans get water from their taps that has been chloramine-treated. The chemical has been used to disinfect water for approximately a century. It is now frequently employed to safeguard the "residual" of a system, which is the water that stays in pipes for a few days after leaving a water treatment facility. Chloramine has been preferred over chlorine more and more since chlorine also creates byproducts, some of which are linked to bladder cancer and are EPA-regulated.
Not participating in the work, David Reckhow, a research professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, called the discovery a significant step. "Determining whether the substance is a hazard is the ultimate goal," he said, agreeing that it was probably hazardous. Since it's a relatively small molecule, it can most likely infiltrate cells and biological processes. He added that the chemical is still reactive. "That's the type of thing you worry about."
According to main author and University of Arkansas associate professor Julian Fairey, the new study's authors arrived at their findings after determining how to create significant amounts of the chemical for laboratory testing. "This study has allowed us to be able to do that work now, even though we don't know the toxicity," said Fairey, who specializes in drinking water byproducts. The difficult task of determining its toxicological significance in our water systems may now begin.
He went on to say that some earlier research has indicated a connection between consuming cleaned water and a higher incidence of several types of cancer. "We have no idea what's causing these. "We don't know if this compound is connected to those results in any way," Fairey stated.
However, there have been inexplicable cases of some cancers linked to drinking water that has been treated. But it will probably be years before any judgments are drawn regarding the toxicity of the recently discovered drug. Even more time would be needed for potential legislation based on those later results. The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators' executive director, Alan Roberson, stated, "It's a lot — probably a decade of research once a funding source is found."
Water providers should closely monitor ongoing research and work to limit public exposure in the interim, according to Reckhow. "You minimize as much as you can," he replied. "You run with insufficient information and make the best decision you can with the toxicity. Unfortunately, that is the world in which we live.
Only a few disinfection byproducts are regulated by the EPA, including a few related to chlorine use. According to scientists, some water companies have been forced to use more chloramine as a result of such laws. David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that advocates for greater scrutiny of chemicals, stated that the study raises serious concerns about whether or not this disinfection method is safer from a health standpoint. There are hundreds of disinfection byproducts in water systems, he continued, but this one merits attention. "A lot of those other contaminants are happening less frequently or at lower concentrations," Andrews stated.
There is a certain amount of health risk associated with any drinking water treatment, according to Roberson. There's a trade-off: Although disinfection procedures have mainly eliminated waterborne illnesses like cholera and typhoid, studies indicate that certain byproducts may raise the risk of cancer and miscarriage. "You want to kill the bacteria and viruses, so you have a real risk-risk trade-off," he explained, explaining why the chloramine was added.
Numerous water utilities in the United States make it clear on their websites whether they use chlorine or chloramine to treat the water they provide. Although additional research is required, Wahman said some research indicates that active carbon filters, such those used in refrigerator filters or residential water purification systems, can remove disinfection byproducts.
Posts
0 Comments