The widespread presence of microplastics (MPs) in fresh surface water has raised concerns about potential human exposure through drinking water sourced from these environments. While MP research is advancing to understand the occurrence and fate of MPs in drinking water production systems, data based on mass concentration is scarce. This study assesses MP concentrations in the drinking water supply system of Amsterdam (the Netherlands) from source to tap, analyzing raw water from two freshwater sources (Lek Canal and Bethune Polder), treated water from two drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) (Leiduin and Weesperkarspel DWTPs), and household tap water samples from the Amsterdam distribution area. MPs ≥ 0.7 µm were identified and quantified using pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC–MS) targeting 6 high production volume polymers: polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Average MP concentrations in raw water samples were 50.6 ± 34.7 µg/L (n = 14) and 47.5 ± 33.7 µg/L (n = 14), while treated water samples exhibited significantly lower levels of 0.80 ± 0.44 µg/L (n = 12) and 1.65 ± 2.19 µg/L (n = 14), demonstrating high removal efficiencies of 97–98%. PE, PVC, and PET were the most abundant polymer types detected. Household tap water samples showed lower concentrations with an average of 0.21 ± 0.12 µg/L (n = 20). These findings highlight the effective removal of MPs during drinking water treatment processes while emphasizing the need for further research to understand the factors influencing MP transport and fate within water distribution networks.
CHICAGO — Breaking research presented today at ADLM 2025 (formerly the AACC Annual Scientific Meeting & Clinical Lab Expo) found that people who live in areas with higher levels of PFAS in their drinking water also have elevated blood levels of these manufactured chemicals. Highlighting why these so-called “forever chemicals” are a growing public-health concern, these findings provide support for policies encouraging more PFAS testing and treatment in public water systems.
“Drinking water is one of the most important routes for exposure to environmental contaminants, including PFAS,” said Dr. Wen Dui, a member of the research team from Quest Diagnostics that conducted the study. “This study was the first of its kind to apply the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) PFAS guidance to study correlation between PFAS in human bodies and drinking water in a large-scale clinical population.”
First developed in the 1940s, PFAS, or per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, were designed to resist water, oil, grease, and heat, making them useful in numerous consumer products and across multiple industries. For example, PFAS can be found in non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, and fast-food packaging, as well as in firefighting foams, aircraft components, medical devices, and construction materials. The substances can enter the public water supply when manufacturers release wastewater into nearby water sources, for example, or when PFAS in landfills leach into groundwater.
Scientists are concerned about possible health consequences of PFAS, which build up in people and the environment over time. For instance, NASEM found evidence of an association between PFAS and adult kidney cancer, decreased infant and fetal growth, abnormally high cholesterol, and a reduced antibody response. The NASEM guidance recommends that anyone with high blood levels of PFAS, defined as a summed total of more than 20 ng/mL of nine key PFAS, receive further testing and reduce their exposure.
“Several federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NASEM, have worked together to summarize evidence, publish guidance, and encourage more clinical PFAS testing,” Dui said. “Quest developed and published a blood test for serum PFAS quantitation of the nine NASEM-recommended analytes to address the critical need for reliable PFAS measurement in clinical laboratories,” Dui said.
As one of its first steps, the team sought to establish the relationship between drinking water contaminated with PFAS and PFAS levels in people’s blood — which is what this new study accomplishes.
Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors the amount of PFAS in public water systems, the researchers were able to pull information from previously collected blood samples to do a geographic comparison by exposure level. They evaluated blood samples taken from 771 individuals who lived in zip codes with high exposure to PFAS through their water and 788 people with low exposure to the substances, ensuring the two groups were otherwise comparable in their age and gender distribution.
They found that 7.1% of the people from zip codes with high-exposure to PFAS had elevated blood levels of PFAS (>20 ng/mL), versus only 2.8% of the people in the low-exposure group — a significant difference. Moreover, the estimated average of combined PFAS in the blood samples was significantly higher in the high-exposure group (9.2 ng/mL) versus the low-exposure group (6.1 ng/mL), as were mean blood levels of each individual PFAS studied.
“Our study found that a higher PFAS level in U.S. public drinking water supply corresponds to higher PFAS serum concentrations in exposed communities,” Dui said, adding that, as a next step, the company hopes to contribute to research on the correlation between PFAS exposure and health outcomes.
Abstract B-281: Correlation between PFAS forever chemical concentrations in remnant serum and public drinking water will be presented during:
Scientific poster session Wednesday, July 30 9:30 a.m. – 5 p.m. (presenting authors in attendance from 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.)
The session will take place in the Poster Hall on the Expo show floor of McCormick Place, Chicago.
About ADLM 2025
ADLM 2025 (formerly the AACC Annual Scientific Meeting & Clinical Lab Expo) offers 5 days packed with opportunities to learn about exciting science from July 27-31 in Chicago. Plenary sessions will explore urgent problems related to clinical artificial intelligence (AI) integration, fake medical news, and the pervasiveness of plastics, as well as tapping into the promise of genomics and microbiome medicine for personalized healthcare.
At the ADLM 2025 Clinical Lab Expo, more than 800 exhibitors will fill the show floor of the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago, with displays of the latest diagnostic technology, including but not limited to AI, point-of-care, and automation.
About the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM)
Dedicated to achieving better health for all through laboratory medicine, ADLM (formerly AACC) unites more than 70,000 clinical laboratory professionals, physicians, research scientists, and business leaders from 110 countries around the world. Our community is at the forefront of laboratory medicine’s diverse subdisciplines, including clinical chemistry, molecular diagnostics, mass spectrometry, clinical microbiology, and data science, and is comprised of individuals holding the spectrum of lab-related professional degrees, certifications, and credentials. Since 1948, ADLM has championed the advancement of laboratory medicine by fostering scientific collaboration, knowledge sharing, and the development of innovative solutions that enhance health outcomes. For more information, visit www.myadlm.org.
In the first study of its kind, researchers from the Keck School of Medicine of USC found an association between levels of manmade “forever chemicals” in drinking water and the incidence of certain digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and mouth and throat cancers.
Zara Abrams
Image/Francesco Scatena, iStock
Communities exposed to drinking water contaminated with manufactured chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) experience up to a 33% higher incidence of certain cancers, according to new research from the Keck School of Medicine of USC.
PFAS, which are used in consumer products such as furniture and food packaging, have been found in about 45% of drinking water supplies across the United States. Past research has linked the chemicals, which are slow to break down and accumulate in the body over time, to a range of health problems, including kidney, breast and testicular cancers.
To paint a more comprehensive picture of PFAS and cancer risk, Keck School of Medicine researchers conducted an ecological study, which uses large population-level datasets to identify patterns of exposure and associated risk. They found that between 2016 and 2021, counties across the U.S. with PFAS-contaminated drinking water had higher incidence of certain types of cancer, which differed by sex. Overall, PFAS in drinking water are estimated to contribute to more than 6,800 cancer cases each year, based on the most recent data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“These findings allow us to draw an initial conclusion about the link between certain rare cancers and PFAS,” said Shiwen (Sherlock) Li, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine and first author of the study. “This suggests that it’s worth researching each of these links in a more individualized and precise way.”
In addition to providing a roadmap for researchers, the findings underscore the importance of regulating PFAS. Starting in 2029, the EPA will police levels of six types of PFAS in drinking water, but stricter limits may ultimately be needed to protect public health, Li said.
The toll of PFAS
To understand how PFAS contamination relates to cancer incidence, the researchers compared two exhaustive datasets—one covering all reported cancer cases and the other including all data on PFAS in drinking water data across the country. Data on cancer cases between 2016 and 2021 were obtained from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, while data on PFAS levels in public drinking water (2013-2024) came from the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule programs.
Li and his colleagues controlled for a number of factors that could influence cancer risk. At the individual level, these included age and sex; at the county level, they ruled out changes in cancer incidence due to socioeconomic status, smoking rates, obesity prevalence, urbanicity (how urban or rural an area is) and the presence of other pollutants.
The researchers then compared cancer incidence in each county to PFAS contamination in the drinking water, using the EPA’s recommended cutoffs for each type of PFAS. Counties where drinking water surpassed recommended maximum levels of PFAS had a higher incidence of digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and mouth and throat cancers. Increases in incidence ranged from slightly elevated at 2% to substantially elevated at 33% (the increased incidence of mouth and throat cancers linked to perfluorobutanesulfonic acid, or PFBS).
Males in counties with contaminated drinking water had a higher incidence of leukemia, as well as cancers of the urinary system, brain and soft tissues, compared to males living in areas with uncontaminated water. Females had a higher incidence of cancers in the thyroid, mouth and throat, and soft tissues. Based on the latest available EPA data, the researchers estimate that PFAS contamination of drinking water contributes to 6,864 cancer cases per year.
“When people hear that PFAS is associated with cancer, it’s hard to know how it’s relevant. By calculating the number of attributable cancer cases, we’re able to estimate how many people may be affected,” Li said, including inferring the personal and financial toll of these cases year after year.
Protecting public health
These population-level findings reveal associations between PFAS and rare cancers that might otherwise go unnoticed. Next, individual-level studies are needed to determine whether the link is causal and to explore what biological mechanisms are involved.
On the regulation side, the results add to the mounting evidence that PFAS levels should be limited, and suggest that proposed changes may not go far enough.
“Certain PFAS that were less studied need to be monitored more, and regulators need to think about other PFAS that may not be strictly regulated yet,” Li said
The work is part of a collaboration between the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, which is funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Keck School of Medicine.
About this research
In addition to Li, the study’s other authors are Lu Zhang, Jesse Goodrich, Rob McConnell, David Conti, Lida Chatzi and Max Aung from the Department of Population and Public Health Science, Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California; and Paulina Oliva from the Department of Economics, Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California.
This work was supported by a pilot grant from the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center [P30ES007048] and the National Cancer Institute [5P30CA014089-47].
From fluoride to “forever chemicals,” drinking water has been in the spotlight this year. In a Q&A, Yale epidemiologist Nicole Deziel discusses the water we drink today — and what’s on tap for the future.
Aug 13, 2025
7 min read
By Meg Dalton
(Illustration by Michael S. Helfenbein)
Listen to this story
8:33
In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, made history — as the first city in the world to add small amounts of fluoride to its public water supply. At the time, studies showed communities with higher levels of natural fluoride in water had better dental health. Water fluoridation is now practiced in about 25 countries around the world, including Spain, Malaysia, and the United States. In the U.S., approximately 63% of the population drinks fluoridated water.
Low levels of fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, can be found in many sources of drinking water due to natural processes like the weathering of rocks and human activities like manufacturing. However, there’s growing debate over whether additional fluoride should be introduced to drinking water. This year, states including Utah and Florida have banned the use of fluoride in public water systems, and federal officials have called for more states to follow suit.
Nicole Deziel is an associate professor of epidemiology (environmental health sciences) and co-director of the Yale Center for Perinatal, Pediatric and Environmental Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health. In an interview, she explains the benefits and risks of fluoride, how “forever chemicals” and climate change impact water quality, and how we can monitor the water we drink.
Nicole Deziel
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What are the benefits of fluoride? Are there any potential risks?
Nicole Deziel: Fluoride can strengthen our bones and teeth enamel, and the strengthening of the enamel prevents cavities. But too much of it can damage our bones and enamel in a process called fluorosis, and it can potentially have neurological effects as well. Fluoridation of the public water supply can help address disparities in dental insurance and access to dental care.
Finding the right amount where the benefits outweigh the risks is key. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L [parts per million] in drinking water. The World Health Organization recommends a limit of 1.5 mg/L, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets a limit of 4 mg/L. Newer evidence of more subtle neurological effects is prompting reexamination of these target levels and limits.
Why are we seeing some states ban the use of fluoride in public water systems? Why are some people suspicious of it?
Deziel: There’s a long history of controversy about fluoride, including urban legends and conspiracy theories. For some people, it may seem counterintuitive to add a chemical that may have some toxic properties to make our water safer. However, we do this with chlorine as well. Chlorine is toxic at high levels and can form harmful byproducts, but we add it to drinking water to disinfect it and kill bacteria and pathogens to make our water safe to drink. We’re often doing these kinds of tradeoffs in environmental health and public health. In addition, misinformation and distrust of science could all be contributing to us revisiting this [the fluoridation of water].
Finding the right amount [of fluoride] where the benefits outweigh the risks is key.
Nicole Deziel
However, there’s been some new data that should prompt us to reexamine fluoride. There have been a few recent studies that have shown that fluoride exposure is linked to lower IQ levels in children where fluoride levels are above some of the target levels. Some in the dental community have raised concerns about how the data in those studies are being interpreted. Given these concerns, it is important that experts across disciplines collectively re-examine the latest evidence on fluoride’s risks and benefits to ensure the public and policymakers receive clear, evidence-based guidance.
Let’s move from fluoride to so-called “forever chemicals,” also known as PFAS. What are PFAS, and why are they called “forever chemicals”?
Deziel: PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment as well as human bodies. They’re molecules that have chains of carbon and fluorine, and the carbon-fluorine bond is the strongest chemical bond known.
Their properties have made PFAS very desirable in many consumer products like Teflon pans, stain-resistant and water-resistant clothing and textiles, food packaging, and more. They’re also in firefighting foam.
According to some estimates, 90% of drinking water in the U.S. contains PFAS. How did happen, and what impact do PFAS have on our health?
Deziel: This happens for a few reasons, such as improper disposal of PFAS at manufacturing sites and the use of firefighting foams at airports and military bases. But PFAS are also in household products, many of which can go down the drain and be introduced into our environment.
PFAS have been linked to a variety of adverse health problems, including endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive effects, decreased effects on our immune system, decreased efficacy of vaccines, and more.
Last year, the U.S. set the first-ever national limits on PFAS. Now, some of those regulations are being delayed or reconsidered. How are limits set for contaminants like PFAS?
Deziel: The Environmental Protection Agency sets maximum contaminant levels for drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. When they set them, they’re allowed to consider not just public health but technological or economic feasibility. It took about 20 years just to get the PFAS standards passed, even though we’ve known about these issues for decades. This is a very slow and inefficient process, and the standards are not keeping pace with the science. So, it’s frustrating that the few new standards set may not even move forward.
In recent years, we’ve also seen several extreme weather events, from wildfires and floods to intense heat and droughts. How does climate change threaten the safety of our drinking water?
Deziel: Climate change can impact our drinking water in many ways. First, increasing intense droughts can affect our water supplies and lead to water scarcity. With wildfires, we often focus on the smoke and the immediate damage, but once the fires have been addressed, there are concerns about all the fire-retardant chemicals that are deposited into our soils and waterways. Plus, wildfires require a lot of water. Rising sea levels can create saltwater intrusion into freshwater sources. Floods and storms can release chemicals into our waterways and impact our water infrastructure overall. So there are many ways our changing climate and extreme weather can affect drinking water.
What can people like you and me do to monitor — and even improve — the quality of the water we drink?
Deziel: In public health, we talk about a hierarchy of controls. So, the best would be to have evidence-based drinking water standards that reflect the best science, and that would be because not everybody has the time and resources to research different strategies or purchase different filters.
However, if someone wanted to reduce their exposures to chemicals, there are several different filtering devices that are available. The most common is the charcoal, or activated carbon, filter. These can remove some chemicals including chlorine, some metals, some organic contaminants, and some but not all PFAS. They can be installed for the whole house, under the sink, or directly on the faucet. Reverse osmosis filters, which push water through a special membrane, are more effective at removing a much wider range of chemicals, but they’re more expensive. Countertop and pitcher-style filters are other options. They use gravity to pass water through a carbon cartridge. They’re generally more affordable, and while they don’t remove as many contaminants as in-line systems, they offer some protection and may be a good starting point for some households.
People may be tempted to turn to bottled water. However, many brands of bottled water are just tap water that’s been run through extra purification steps (spring water and mineral water are exceptions). This additional treatment can mean the water is very clean, but bottled water comes with significant downsides. In the U.S., only a tiny fraction of the millions of plastic bottles we use actually get recycled, with most polluting streets, rivers, and oceans. Producing those bottles uses petroleum and releases greenhouse gases, adding to climate change. Moreover, single-use plastic bottles can release endocrine-disrupting chemicals called phthalates as well as tiny plastic particles known as microplastics, especially if left in sunlight and heat.
Portable tests could detect “forever chemicals” in your home’s drinking water
By Tara Molina
We know how important clean water is, but tricky chemicals that get into our water can be hard to detect, posing dangers to our water systems and our health – until now.
Researchers with the University of Chicago have teamed up with Argonne National Labs in Lemont to detect the smallest chemicals in our water in an effort to make it safer and healthier for all.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are better known as “forever chemicals.” They’re man-made compounds that are found in places like fast food packaging, firefighters’ foams and other places. They’re long-lasting chemicals and do not naturally degrade, instead accumulating in the environment and our bodies over time, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations on them last year.
Until recently, they were somewhat difficult to detect in drinking water, but labs like Argonne are making gains.
“It affects essentially all of us, and it is, in fact, dangerous,” Argonne’s Seth Darling said. “They’re really toxic to humans. They’ve been linked to cancer, they’ve been linked to reproductive issues, thyroid problems, all kinds of health issues.”
Darling is working alongside Junhong Chen, with UChicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering. They’re building a first-of-its-kind sensor that can detect PFAS in water.
“The work we are doing here is really important, because now we have a way to be able to measure this PFAS,” Chen said. “Almost the only way to measure for PFAS is to take the water sample and send it to a high-end analytical laboratory for the analysis.”
Darling says that, because the chemicals are dangerous even at low concentrations, you need a technique that can test for extremely low levels. The sensor they’re behind can detect down to what would equate to one grain of sand in an Olympic-sized swimming pool, or 250 parts per quadrillion.
Typically, this level of inspection would require intensive and expensive lab testing. Their goal is to make these tests accessible for anyone to make sure their water is safe, directly from their home.
“What’s important here is developing new ways,” Darling said, “low-cost, fast ways to determine: Is there PFAS in your water and, if so, how much?”
Understanding risk below the current US EPA regulatory standard
Source:Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health
Summary:Long-term exposure to arsenic in water may increase cardiovascular risk and especially heart disease risk even at exposure levels below the federal regulatory limit, according to new research. A study describes exposure-response relationships at concentrations below the current regulatory limit and substantiates that prolonged exposure to arsenic in water contributes to the development of ischemic heart disease.Share:
FULL STORY
Long-term exposure to arsenic in water may increase cardiovascular disease and especially heart disease risk even at exposure levels below the federal regulatory limit (10µg/L) according to a new study at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. This is the first study to describe exposure-response relationships at concentrations below the current regulatory limit and substantiates that prolonged exposure to arsenic in water contributes to the development of ischemic heart disease.
The researchers compared various time windows of exposure, finding that the previous decade of water arsenic exposure up to the time of a cardiovascular disease event contributed the greatest risk. The findings are published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
“Our findings shed light on critical time windows of arsenic exposure that contribute to heart disease and inform the ongoing arsenic risk assessment by the EPA. It further reinforces the importance of considering non-cancer outcomes, and specifically cardiovascular disease, which is the number one cause of death in the U.S. and globally,” said Danielle Medgyesi, a doctoral Fellow in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia Mailman School. “This study offers resounding proof of the need for regulatory standards in protecting health and provides evidence in support of reducing the current limit to further eliminate significant risk.”
According to the American Heart Association and other leading health agencies, there is substantial evidence that arsenic exposure increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. This includes evidence of risk at high arsenic levels (>100µg/L) in drinking water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reduced the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic in community water supplies (CWS) from 50µg/L to 10µg/L beginning in 2006. Even so, drinking water remains an important source of arsenic exposure among CWS users. The natural occurrence of arsenic in groundwater is commonly observed in regions of New England, the upper Midwest, and the West, including California.
To evaluate the relationship between long-term arsenic exposure from CWS and cardiovascular disease, the researchers used statewide healthcare administrative and mortality records collected for the California Teachers Study cohort from enrollment through follow-up (1995-2018), identifying fatal and nonfatal cases of ischemic heart disease and cardiovascular disease. Working closely with collaborators at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the team gathered water arsenic data from CWS for three decades (1990-2020).
The analysis included 98,250 participants, 6,119 ischemic heart disease cases and 9,936 CVD cases. Excluded were those 85 years of age or older and those with a history of cardiovascular disease at enrollment. Similar to the proportion of California’s population that relies on CWS (over 90 percent), most participants resided in areas served by a CWS (92 percent). Leveraging the extensive years of arsenic data available, the team compared time windows of relatively short-term (3-years) to long-term (10-years to cumulative) average arsenic exposure. The study found decade-long arsenic exposure up to the time of a cardiovascular disease event was associated with the greatest risk, consistent with a study in Chile finding peak mortality of acute myocardial infarction around a decade after a period of very high arsenic exposure. This provides new insights into relevant exposure windows that are critical to the development of ischemic heart disease.
Nearly half (48 percent) of participants were exposed to an average arsenic concentration below California’s non-cancer public health goal <1 µg/L. In comparison to this low-exposure group, those exposed to 1 to <5 µg/L had modestly higher risk of ischemic heart disease, with increases of 5 to 6 percent. Risk jumped to 20 percent among those in the exposure ranges of 5 to <10 µg/L (or one-half to below the current regulatory limit), and more than doubled to 42 percent for those exposed to levels at and above the current EPA limit ≥10µg/L. The relationship was consistently stronger for ischemic heart disease compared to cardiovascular disease, and no evidence of risk for stroke was found, largely consistent with previous research and the conclusions of the current EPA risk assessment.
These results highlight the serious health consequences not only when community water systems do not meet the current EPA standard but also at levels below the current standard. The study found a substantial 20 percent risk at arsenic exposures ranging from 5 to <10 µg/L which affected about 3.2 percent of participants, suggesting that stronger regulations would provide significant benefits to the population. In line with prior research, the study also found higher arsenic concentrations, including concentrations above the current standard, disproportionally affect Hispanic and Latina populations and residents of lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods.
“Our results are novel and encourage a renewed discussion of current policy and regulatory standards,” said Columbia Mailman’s Tiffany Sanchez, senior author. “However, this also implies that much more research is needed to understand the risks associated with arsenic levels that CWS users currently experience. We believe that the data and methods developed in this study can be used to bolster and inform future studies and can be extended to evaluate other drinking water exposures and health outcomes.”
Co-authors are Komal Bangia, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, California; James V. Lacey Jr and Emma S. Spielfogel,California Teacher Study, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, California; and Jared A Fisher, Jessica M. Madrigal, Rena R. Jones, and Mary H. Ward, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, grants U01-CA199277, P30-CA033572, P30-CA023100, UM1-CA164917, and R01-CA077398; and also funded by the Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program P42ES033719; NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences P30 Center for Environmental Health and Justice P30ES9089, NIH Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training grant T32ES007322, NIH Predoctoral Individual Fellowship F31ES035306, and the Intramural Research Program of the NCI Z-CP010125-28.
Summary:A study shedding new light on how arsenic can be made less dangerous to humans has the potential to dramatically improve water and food safety, especially in the Global South.Share:
FULL STORY
A study led by the University of Bristol shedding new light on how arsenic can be made less dangerous to humans has the potential to dramatically improve water and food safety, especially in the Global South.
For the lead researcher it’s an academic and personal mission because he witnessed first-hand the constant struggle to find clean, arsenic-free water as a child in India.
Lead author Dr Jagannath Biswakarma, Senior Research Associate at the University’s School of Earth Sciences, said: “There are millions of people living in regions affected by arsenic, like I was growing up. This breakthrough could pave the way for safer drinking water and a healthier future.”
Arsenic pollution exposure is a huge environmental and public health issue in southern and central Asia and South America, where people depend on groundwater for drinking and farming. The more toxic and mobile form of arsenic, called arsenite, easily seeps into water supplies and can lead to cancers, heart disease and other serious conditions.
Dr Biswakarma said: “I’ve seen the daily battle for safe drinking water in my hometown Assam. It’s very hard to find groundwater sources that aren’t contaminated with arsenic, so for me this research hits close to home. It’s an opportunity to not only advance science, but also better understand the extent of a problem which has affected so many people in my own community and across the world for many decades.”
Scientists previously believed arsenite could only be turned into the less harmful form, called arsenate, with oxygen. But this new study has shown it can still be oxidised, even in the absence of oxygen, with small amounts of iron which act as a catalyst for oxidation.
Dr Biswakarma said: “This study presents a new approach to addressing one of the world’s most persistent environmental health crises by showing that naturally occurring iron minerals can help oxidise, lowering the mobility of arsenic, even in low-oxygen conditions.”
Study findings revealed that arsenite could be oxidised by green rust sulfate, a source of iron prevalent in low-oxygen conditions, such as groundwater supplies. They also showed this oxidation process is further enhanced with a chemical released by plants and commonly found in soils and groundwater.
“These organic ligands, such a citrate from plant roots, could play a critical role in controlling arsenic mobility and toxicity in natural environments,” Dr Biswakarma added.
The implications of this discovery are particularly significant for regions in the Global South facing some of the world’s highest levels of arsenic pollution. In countries such as India and Bangladesh, the local geology is rich in iron, and reducing conditions often dominate in groundwater systems, leading to high levels of arsenic contamination. In the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta, which spans Bangladesh and eastern India, millions of people have been exposed to arsenic-contaminated groundwater for decades as the chemical enters the water through natural processes.
Dr Biswakarma said: “Many households rely on tube wells and hand pumps, but these systems do not guarantee access to clean water. The water often cannot be used for drinking or other household tasks due to its toxicity, odour, and discoloration. Additionally, there is an ongoing financial burden associated with obtaining new tube wells or hand pumps. As a result, economically disadvantaged families continue to struggle to find safe water for their daily needs.”
Similarly, the Mekong Delta and the Red River Delta, in Vietnam, face ongoing challenges with arsenic pollution, affecting drinking water supplies and agricultural productivity. Rice paddies can become hotspots of arsenic exposure, as the toxic chemical can accumulate in soil and be absorbed by rice plants, posing a further health risk through food consumption.
“The research opens the door for developing new strategies to mitigate arsenic pollution. Understanding the role of iron minerals in arsenic oxidation could lead to innovative approaches to water treatment or soil remediation, using natural processes to convert arsenic into its less harmful form before it enters drinking water supplies,” said co-author Molly Matthews, who worked on the paper during her Masters degree in Environmental Geoscience at the University of Bristol.
Identifying the specific form of arsenic in a sample can be challenging. Even a trace amount of oxygen can convert arsenite into arsenate, so it is vital to protect samples from exposure to air. Thanks to funding from the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) the team was able to conduct these complex experiments at its XMaS synchrotron facility, in Grenoble, France.
Co-author Dr James Byrne, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, added: “Determining arsenic formation at the atomic level using X-ray absorption spectroscopy was crucial for confirming changes to the arsenic oxidation state. The synchrotron therefore played a pivotal role in supporting our findings, which have potentially broad implications for our understanding of water quality.”
This work at University of Bristol was supported through a UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) Future Leaders Fellowship (FLF) awarded to Dr James Byrne. Further research is now needed to explore how these findings can be applied in real-world settings.
Dr Biswakarma said: “The whole research team worked tirelessly on this project, putting in 24/7 shifts including over Easter to conduct the experiments in France.
“I genuinely believe, with more work, we can find effective possible solutions and we’re already making great inroads to overcoming this big global issue. We’re excited to investigate how this process might work in different types of soils and groundwater systems, especially in areas where arsenic contamination is most severe.”
Finding bold answers to big questions concerning global challenges is at the heart of the University of Bristol’s research. This study cuts across core themes, including advancing equitable and sustainable health, and driving forward social justice.
Water makes up about 60-percent of your body, so why is it when we need to fix an ailment we automatically reach for an artificial cream or some other commercial remedy?
Water is essential to life, as it is to maintain life and help us repair ourselves. It doesn’t have to be consumed to reap the benefits, either. Here are six ways water can encourage natural healing…
Soothing Pain from Arthritis
If you have a backyard pool or are close to a recreational facility that allows public swimming, then you have a great tool in warding off pain from arthritis and even soreness from exercising.
The Arthritis Foundation notes that gentle movement in water is easy on the joints, even though it provides 12-times the resistance of air. For the latter reason, you can still build muscle in the process. Heated pools (82-Fahrenheit to 88-Fahrenheit) can take healing to the next level, helping to soothe pain, adds the source.
Faster Wound Healing
AdvancedTissue.com says staying properly hydrated can step up the pace of the wound healing stages. It adds that a lack of moisture reaching the surface of the wound “will halt cellular migration, decrease oxygenation of the blood and vastly delay the wound treatment process.”
Because of the high content of water in your body, maintaining a “positive level of hydration” that can add in repairing wounds requires 64-ounces or more of water per day (around 8-glasses). Drinking more than this can further help cells to travel to the wound site to supply more oxygen and nutrients, adds the source.
Promoting Mental Health
While we often only think of the physical benefits of drinking water, Healthy Holistic Living says on its website that water is important in improving mental health. “Water also works to improve your mental health, making it easier to keep you going throughout the day,” notes the source.
It explains that water has an “interesting effect” on mood levels, and claims you can actually get “high” just by consuming water (not recommended to try, says the site). However, water helps keep you energized, which helps you generate more “feel good” hormones that impact mood, it adds.
Healing Debilitating Conditions?
Perhaps take this one with a grain of salt; but a website called Watercure.com explains how a man that had crippling spinal arthritis (ankylosing spondylitis) was reportedly cured with a water/salt treatment, after other treatments failed for three decades.
However, the site explains its about “more to it than simply drinking water.” Rehydration must be done gradually when it’s severe, it adds. “You must learn what can happen to your own body when it becomes dehydrated. Not everybody registers drought in the same way,” explains the source.
Enhancing Weakening Eyesight
At some point, everyone will experience some loss of their young hawk-eye vision—whether it’s due to near-sightedness or far-sightedness or both—but there are natural ways to help reverse this process, according to NaturalSociety.com.
“Pure water” is one of 4-steps to sharper sight, explains the source. “Drinking an adequate amount of pure filtered water will prevent total-body dehydration, and subsequently dry eyes,” it offers. Water intake should be complemented with antioxidants (beta-carotene), as well as fatty acids like fish oil.
Reducing Skin Blemishes
The jury is still out on whether drinking more water can make your skin look more youthful, as your body only uses so much of it before eliminating the excess (use a good moisturizer if you want anti-aging properties, suggest experts).
However, Greatist.com notes that inflammation in the skin that causes acne can be treated to some degree with some quality H2O. Water can help flush out the toxins that lead to the inflammation to begin with, adds the source. If water doesn’t work, see your doctor for any possible allergies causing skin blemishes.
If you think the water you are drinking is just H2O, think again! According to studies, an astonishing 75,000 chemical compounds have been found in our water, yet the EPA has established enforceable safety standards for only 87. Many of these common water contaminants and chemicals are potentially harmful and can spawn health problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one million people get sick from drinking contaminated water each year, with about 1,000 cases on average ending in death.
Using outdated technology, many municipalities simply weren’t built to handle the influx of common modern-day water contaminants. Various pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides, toxic waste from landfills, chemical and oil spills, acid rain, and more find their way into our water supplies. Most often this water is treated with chlorine or chloramines to control bacterial growth which, according to some health experts, may also contribute to illness.
Even if the water that leaves the treatment plants meets EPA minimum safety standards, health threats don’t stop there. The water may pass through unsafe water lines that recontaminate it on the way to your home. Examine your pipes and those of water distribution systems and you’ll find the insides of some of these pipes caked with mineral, biological and chemical deposits. In some cases, the pipes themselves may leach copper and lead! Another threat lurking inside older water pipes is bio-film, composed of layers of bacteria that can harbor pathogens like E. coli. And don’t think well water is any safer because groundwater pollutants may also seep into that source. Add to that the chlorine and other chemicals used to treat well water, and you have water that is chemically altered.
The sad truth is that our water supply is compromised by harmful chemicals. EPA standards require water treatment plants to reduce certain common water contaminants. Annual reports issued by the EPA for 2002 indicated that there were 80,635 documented violations nationwide. When violations occur, “boil water” alerts are issued but, by then, you may have already consumed dangerously contaminated water.
You have to ask yourself the question, “Over the course of my life, how will these chemicals and trace pollutants affect my health and that of my family?” Consider what this means if, over the course of your life, you drink approximately 13,000 gallons of water. There could be undetected contaminants in each glass you drink having a cumulative effect on your health for the worse. That’s why it’s so important you make doubly sure the water you drink is 100% steam distilled. And with Waterwise’s distilled water-making machines, you can take control of your water quality today and enjoy peace of mind.
GET WET! 