EWG: Reducing multiple tap water contaminants may prevent over 50,000 cancer cases

Study shows health benefits of tackling arsenic, chromium-6 and other pollutants at once

WASHINGTON – Drinking water treatment that pursues a multi-contaminant approach, tackling several pollutants at once, could prevent more than 50,000 lifetime cancer cases in the U.S., finds a new peer-reviewed study by the Environmental Working Group.

The finding challenges the merits of regulating one tap water contaminant at a time, the long-standing practice of states and the federal government.

In the paper, published in the journal Environmental Research, EWG scientists analyzed more than a decade of data from over 17,000 community water systems. They found that two cancer-causing chemicals – arsenic and hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6 – often appear together in systems and can be treated using the same technologies.

If water systems with chromium-6 contamination also reduce arsenic levels to a range from 27% to 42%, it could avoid up to quadruple the number of cancer cases compared to just lowering chromium-6 levels alone, the study finds.

Treatment of drinking water for one contaminant, such as nitrate, has advantages for public health. But tackling multiple contaminants at once increases the health benefits. And those benefits can expand along with the number of pollutants treated at the same time.

“Drinking water is contaminated mostly in mixtures, but our regulatory system still acts like they appear one at a time,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., a senior scientist at EWG and lead author of the study. “This research shows that treating multiple contaminants together could prevent tens of thousands of cancer cases.”

Chromium-6 and arsenic are commonly found in drinking water across the U.S. Chromium-6 has been found in drinking water served to 264 million Americans.

“Addressing co-occurring contaminants is scientifically the most sound approach, as well as an efficient way to protect public health,” added Stoiber.

In California alone, nearly eight out of 10 preventable cancer cases are linked to arsenic exposure.

Arizona, California and Texas bear the highest burden of arsenic pollution and would gain the most from multi-contaminant water treatment efforts.

Health risks of water contaminants

Toxic chemicals like chromium-6, arsenic and nitrate pose the greatest risks to children, pregnant people and those living in smaller communities served by water systems relying on groundwater. Systems serving these populations often rely on only one water source and the smaller communities lack the resources to demand better treatment, despite facing the most serious health harms.

Chromium-6

This cancer-causing chemical made infamous by the film “Erin Brockovich” is linked to serious health risks. Studies show even low levels in drinking water can increase the risk of stomach cancer, liver damage and reproductive harm.

In 2008, the National Toxicology Program found much higher rates of stomach and intestinal tumors in lab animals exposed to chromium-6 in water. California researchers later confirmed a higher risk of stomach cancer in workers who had been exposed.

The Environmental Protection Agency does not limit the amount of chromium-6 in drinking water. It does regulate total chromium, which includes chromium-6 and the mostly harmless chromium-3. Total chromium is set at 100 parts per billion, or ppb, for drinking water.

Arsenic

Arsenic is found in drinking water in all 50 states. It occurs in natural deposits and as a result of human activities such as mining and pesticide use. Long-term exposure is linked to serious health issues, including bladder, lung and skin cancers, as well as cardiovascular and developmental harm.

The legal federal limit for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb, set in 2001 based on outdated cost estimates for treatment, not on what’s safest for health. California’s public health goal is just 0.004 ppb, the level scientists say would pose no significant cancer risk over a lifetime.

Arsenic can also contaminate certain foods, especially rice and rice-based products, making clean water standards all the more important for reducing overall exposure.

Nitrate

Nitrate is one of the most common drinking water contaminants, especially downstream from agricultural areas where it enters water supplies through fertilizer and manure runoff. It’s also found in private wells, often near farms or septic systems.

Exposure to nitrate in drinking water is linked to serious health risks, including colorectal and ovarian cancer, very preterm birth, low birth weight, and neural tube defects.

The EPA set the nitrate limit at 10 parts per million in 1992 to prevent “blue baby syndrome.” But it hasn’t updated the standard in over 30 years. New research shows cancer and birth-related harms can occur at levels far below the legal limit. European studies have found increased cancer risks at nitrate levels more than 10 times lower than the EPA limit.

“Ensuring clean drinking water for all communities is about fairness and equity,” said Sydney Evans, MPH, EWG senior science analyst and a co-author of the new study.

“Communities in the U.S. that rely on groundwater are often affected by these contaminants. New water treatment technologies offer a chance to improve water quality overall. This strengthens the case for action and investment.”

Call for smarter water rules

Federal regulations still evaluate the cost and benefit of water treatment on a one-contaminant basis, a model EWG’s report calls outdated and inefficient.

Small and rural water systems often face the steepest per-person costs to implement new treatment technologies. But they’re among the most exposed to pollutants and associated risks.

These systems frequently lack the funding and technical support to upgrade aging infrastructure, leaving residents exposed to serious health threats. This level of vulnerability calls for new strategies for these communities – a boost in funding coupled with more effective regulations.

For example, nitrate, often found alongside chromium-6 in drinking water, represents a major but overlooked opportunity for health protection.

“Nitrate pollution is a public health crisis, particularly in the Midwest but also across the country,” said Anne Schechinger, EWG’s Midwest director. “The federal nitrate limit was set decades ago to prevent infant deaths, but we now know see cancer and birth complications at levels of nitrate far below that outdated standard.

“Even lowering nitrate slightly could prevent hundreds of cancer cases and save tens of millions of dollars in health care costs, especially when paired with treatment for other contaminants, such as chromium-6 and arsenic,” she said. “There’s a real cost to inaction – our health and our wallets can’t afford to wait for better treatment.”

Proven technologies like ion exchange and reverse osmosis, already used today, can remove nitrate, chromium-6 and arsenic from drinking water at the same time.

“This is about more than clean water – it’s about protecting health and advancing equity,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., acting chief science officer at EWG. “We have the engineering solutions to fix the broken drinking water system in the U.S., but we need state and federal policies to reflect the reality people face when they turn on the tap.”

Consumers concerned about chemicals in their tap water can install a water filter to help reduce their exposure to contaminants. The home filter system that’s most effective for removing chromium-6, arsenic and nitrate from water is reverse osmosis. Ion exchange technology is another option for reducing levels of these contaminants.

EWG’s water filter guide contains more information about available options. It is crucial to change water filters on time. Old filters aren’t safe, since they harbor bacteria and let contaminants through.

People can also search EWG’s national Tap Water Database to learn which contaminants are detected in their tap water.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2025/07/ewg-reducing-multiple-tap-water-contaminants-may-prevent-over?

EWG Tap Water Database update shows hundreds of contaminants widespread in U.S. tap water

Search by postal code for water quality reports and filter recommendations

WASHINGTON – This year’s update to the Environmental Working Group’s Tap Water Database shows millions of Americans are drinking water tainted with harmful chemicals, heavy metals and radioactive substances. Many of these contaminants are at levels far above what scientists consider safe.

EWG’s latest analysis includes water quality data collected between 2021 and 2023 from nearly 50,000 water systems. It identified 324 contaminants in drinking water across the country, with detectable levels in almost all community water systems.

“This is a wake-up call,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., a senior scientist at EWG. “For over 30 years, EWG has been at the forefront of advocating for stronger drinking water protections. Outdated federal regulations continue to leave millions of people at risk of exposure to harmful substances.

“Our Tap Water Database is the only resource providing consumers in every state access to accurate information about water contaminants, health risks and steps to reduce exposure through filtration – information they need so they can take action,” she said.

The levels of contamination in many locations fall largely below the Environmental Protection Agency’s outdated legal limits. But they often far exceed EWG’s health-based standards, the sweeping analysis of nationwide water utility tests found.

The Tap Water Database empowers virtually everyone in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to check local water quality and take action to improve it, if necessary. By entering their ZIP code, users can easily find detailed information about the contaminants in their local water supply, including tips on choosing the right water filter to reduce exposure.

“Consumers shouldn’t need to worry if their water is safe to drink,” said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst at EWG. “The burden also shouldn’t fall to individuals to filter out hazardous substances that shouldn’t be in water taps to begin with.”

The update highlights contaminants in U.S. drinking water, including the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, that are in the drinking water of over143 million people. Tap water throughout the U.S. can also contain volatile organic compounds, nitrate and arsenic, among many other contaminants. These pollutants, often linked to cancer, developmental issues and other health risks, are found in nearly all community water systems.

Harmful disinfection byproducts and radiological contaminants also persist in water supplies in many communities.

Hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, is a carcinogen made infamous by the Erin Brockovich case in Hinkley, Calif., and it’s in the drinking water of over 250 million Americans. There is no federal limit for chromium-6, despite its widespread presence and link to cancer and organ damage.

EPA efforts to safeguard drinking water continue to lag

Despite mounting scientific evidence and public concern about U.S. drinking water quality, federal action remains slow. In 2024, the Biden EPA introduced its first drinking water standards in more than 20 years, setting health-protective maximum contaminant limits for six PFAS.

“For too long, outdated federal standards have failed to reflect the latest science on drinking water, leaving millions exposed to harmful chemicals,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at EWG. “While the new PFAS standards represent a historic step forward, they are only a fraction of what is needed to protect public health.”

The EPA standards are critical in reducing PFAS contamination in the nation’s water supply. But these vital new protections could be at risk if the Trump administration tries to roll them back, along with weakening other steps the Biden EPA took to tackle PFAS pollution.

“Safe drinking water shouldn’t be a political debate – it’s a fundamental right. A rollback of these hard-won protections would be a devastating setback. We must push for stronger, science-based regulations to ensure safe water for every American,” said Benesh.

###

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2025/02/ewg-tap-water-database-update-shows-hundreds-contaminants?

Integrating water quality and water quantity to diagnose the health of water metabolism systems in multi-core multi-level urban agglomerations

Author links open overlay panelYing Yang ^a¹

, Jing Wen ^a¹

, Meirong Su ^b

, Qionghong Chen ^cShow moreAdd to MendeleyShareCite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2025.123899 Get rights and content

Highlights

•The MRIO table was compiled for a multi-core multi-level urban agglomeration.
•A diagnostic framework was established by coupling ENA and MRIO approaches.
•Water quantity-water quality linkage was considered in the diagnostic framework.
•The IWMN was less vigorous and less organized than the QWMN.
•The IWMN tended slightly towards mutualism but had more negative collaborations.

Abstract

Urban agglomerations (UAs) are compelled to scrutinize the health of their water systems as the frequency of water crises increases. An urban water system’s health is closely related to metabolism processes. To date, water systems in multi-core multi-level UAs have not been analyzed using water quantity and water quality because of methodological constraints. To address this research gap, we developed an integrated water quality–water quantity model for diagnosing water metabolism systems that could process nested multi-region input-output (MRIO) tables. We coupled the MRIO tables and established two networks, an integrated water quantity–quality metabolism network (IWMN) and a water quantity metabolism network (QWMN). We tested the two networks with data from the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao UA and assessed four aspects of the networks’ health, namely vigor, organization, resilience, and collaboration, using ecological network analysis. We discovered that IWMN exhibited lower vigor (internal circulation 10.4 %) and organization dominated by dependency (total contribution intensity σ = -23) compared to the QWMN. Polity-driven disparities shaped the robustness distribution, while a mutualism tendency coexisted with a complex exploitation relationship (52.4 %), particularly in the core large-sized city of Hong Kong, where 58 new competitive pairs emerged. Thus, we recommend prioritizing Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao trade optimization for high-water-content products to enhance system health.

Graphical abstract

Introduction

The surface water deficit experienced in 482 of the world’s largest cities is projected to reach 6.75 million tons by 2050 because of an imbalance between the water supply and the demand (Flörke et al., 2018). This trend has prompted growing interest in resource allocation and environmental protection within urban agglomerations (UAs). UAs are composed of multiple geographically adjacent cities with diverse sizes and characteristics (Fang et al., 2015). Diverse UAs with multi-core structures (classified by comprehensive urban engine functions) and multi-level systems (quantified by social indicators) face challenges due to high heterogeneity in population size and spatial resource allocation (Han et al., 2019; Chirigati, 2022; Zhao et al., 2021). Water quantity and water quality are important attributes of water resources. Changes in the water quantity caused by a lack of rainfall or heavy rainfall events affect the water quality by concentrating pollutants or diluting. Conversely, degraded water quality diminishes the availability of water resources (Li et al., 2023) and has direct effects on urban aquatic ecosystems (Liu and Yang, 2012). Therefore, to optimize water management in multi-core multi-level UAs, we need to know more about the combined effects of water quality and water quantity on the water resources.

When optimizing water management in urban areas, the water metabolism mechanism of the system should be analyzed, and key issues should be identified (Cao et al., 2021; He et al., 2020b; Liu et al., 2022). The concept of water metabolism originates from urban metabolism (Wolman, 1965), which describes water cycle processes (e.g., water input, output, and storage) driven by social activities in different cities (Wang and Chen, 2010). This concept can effectively identify hidden risks resulting from the allocation of social resources—such as population, industry and environment within UAs, thus challenging the traditional multilevel paradigm of urban water management. In assessing the health of water systems based on water metabolism mechanisms, processes analogous to those in natural ecosystems, such as vigor and collaboration (Y.J. Yang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020), sustained and stable organization, and adaptability to external pressures (Yan et al., 2014), are employed. However, to date, most research has primarily focused on the efficiency of consumptive activities (Nishimura et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2020), while ignoring the underlying water metabolism processes.

Network methods are effective for characterizing critical resource metabolism processes (Liang et al., 2020). Ecological Network Analysis (ENA) (Hannon B, 1973) quantifies metabolic features via resource fluxes (Fath, 2004; Ulanowicz et al., 2009), offering insights into system health. For example, resource footprint circulation rates reflect node vigor; balanced control-dependency relationships enhance organizational capacity; maintaining metabolic orderliness optimizes resilience thresholds; and niche complementarity indices help analyze co-evolutionary collaboration. There is concern about the approaches used to quantitatively assess the resource flows within a network. A bottom-up approach uses industrial processes to track water flows (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013), but a top-down approach quantitatively assesses the resource flows within a network (Feng et al., 2011). For example, input-output analysis (IOA), an accepted method for quantifying water flows in a water metabolism system, is preferred over bottom-up approaches because it can link industrial economic data to water consumption using input-output tables and produce a high-resolution view of the networked water flow transactions, helping us to address issues caused within UAs by economic trade, such as water-related resource flows, ecosystem services, and health status (Hubacek and Feng, 2016). However, our ability to carry out a comprehensive and accurate assessment of water system health within UAs is hampered by a lack of high-resolution MRIO data for multi-core multi-level UAs, which has resulted from the poor alignment of statistical standards used for trade data across cities of different levels.

To date, there is little clarity about how the combination of water quantity and water quality influences the health of water metabolism systems in UAs. Cao et al. (2021) were the first to evaluate the health of water networks using an assessment model that focused on water quantity, but excluded water quality. Adequate water quantity and sufficient water quality are essential for the sustainable use of urban water resources (Cai et al., 2023). A water footprint, which incorporates both water quantity and water quality, can be used to assess water flows (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). Various water footprints have been defined, and the blue water footprint (BWF) and grey water footprint (GWF) have been used to quantify both water quantity and water quality (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2011; Yu et al., 2022). In previous studies, researchers have focused on either water quantity or water quality when assessing the intensity of resource transfers (Cai et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2016) and the factors that influenced them (Cai and Guo, 2023; Guan et al., 2014). Some researchers have also simulated and evaluated the performance of metabolism systems using either water quantity or water quality as the independent metabolism medium (He et al., 2020b, 2020a; Liu et al., 2022). The conventional separation of water quantity and quality in current research paradigms makes it difficult to reveal the cascading effects of their synergistic interactions on multiscale metabolism systems, which may lead to ecological cognitive bias in system health assessments. As synergistic variables within regional metabolism system, the mechanisms underlying the interactions between water quantity and water quality remain underexplored. It is imperative to conceptualize water quantity and quality as an integrated metabolism medium and develop a corresponding theoretical framework to elucidate how their synergistic metabolic processes influence system health.

The diagnoses of water metabolism system health at the UA scale are constrained by a) a lack of MRIO tables, which hinders the accurate assessment of water flow within UAs with multi-core and multi-level cities, and b) a limited understanding of how the health of metabolism systems is influenced when water quantity and water quality are combined into a single metabolism medium. To address these issues, we proposed a method for compiling MRIO tables for multi-core multi-level UAs that resolved the methodological limitations associated with assessments of water flow. We created two networks based on MRIO and ENA, one that integrated water quantity and water quality and another for water quantity only, and assessed four attributes of the health of the two networks, namely vigor, organization, resilience, and collaboration. We then tested the method with data from the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area UA (GBA).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135425008073?via%3Dihub

Twenty-year study shows cleaner water slashes cancer and heart disease deaths

Date:November 27, 2025

Source:Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health

Summary:A 20-year project in Bangladesh reveals that lowering arsenic levels in drinking water can slash death rates from major chronic diseases. Participants who switched to safer wells had the same risk levels as people who were never heavily exposed. The researchers tracked individual water exposure with detailed urine testing. Their results show how quickly health improves once contaminated water is replaced.Share:

FULL STORY

Safer Wells Save Lives in Bangladesh — Cleaner water dramatically reduces chronic disease deaths, even for those exposed to arsenic for years. Credit: Shutterstock

A large 20-year investigation following nearly 11,000 adults in Bangladesh found that reducing arsenic in drinking water was tied to as much as a 50 percent drop in deaths from heart disease, cancer and several other chronic illnesses. The research offers the strongest long-term evidence so far that lowering arsenic exposure can reduce mortality, even for people who lived with contaminated water for many years. These results appear in JAMA.

Scientists from Columbia University, the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health and New York University led the analysis, which addresses a widespread health concern. Naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater remains a significant challenge across the world. In the United States, more than 100 million people depend on groundwater that can contain arsenic, particularly those using private wells. Arsenic continues to be one of the most common chemical contaminants in drinking water.

“We show what happens when people who are chronically exposed to arsenic are no longer exposed,” said co-lead author Lex van Geen of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of the Columbia Climate School. “You’re not just preventing deaths from future exposure, but also from past exposure.”

Two Decades of Data Strengthen the Evidence

Co-lead author Fen Wu of NYU Grossman School of Medicine said the findings offer the clearest proof yet of the connection between lowering arsenic exposure and reduced mortality risk. Over the course of two decades, the researchers closely tracked participants’ health and repeatedly measured arsenic through urine samples, which strengthened the precision of their analysis.

“Seeing that our work helped sharply reduce deaths from cancer and heart disease, I realized the impact reaches far beyond our study to millions in Bangladesh and beyond now drinking water low in arsenic,” said Joseph Graziano, Professor Emeritus at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health and principal investigator of the NIH-funded program. “A 1998 New York Times story first brought us to Bangladesh. More than two decades later, this finding is deeply rewarding. Public health is often the ultimate delayed gratification.”

Clear Drop in Risk When Arsenic Exposure Falls

People whose urinary arsenic levels fell from high to low had mortality rates that matched those who had consistently low exposure for the entire study. The size of the drop in arsenic was closely tied to how much mortality risk declined. Those who continued drinking high-arsenic water did not show any reduction in chronic disease deaths.

Arsenic naturally accumulates in groundwater and has no taste or smell, meaning people can drink contaminated water for years without knowing it. In Bangladesh, an estimated 50 million people have consumed water exceeding the World Health Organization’s guideline of 10 micrograms per liter. The WHO has described this as the largest mass poisoning in history.

From 2000 to 2022, the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) monitored thousands of adults in Araihazar, Bangladesh. The project tested more than 10,000 wells in a region where many families rely on shallow tube wells with arsenic levels ranging from extremely low to dangerously high.

Researchers periodically measured arsenic in participants’ urine, a direct marker of internal exposure, and recorded causes of death. These detailed data allowed the team to compare long-term health outcomes for people who reduced their exposure with those who remained highly exposed.

Community Efforts Created a Natural Comparison Group

Throughout the study period, national and local programs labeled wells as safe or unsafe based on arsenic levels. Many households switched to safer wells or installed new ones, while others continued using contaminated water. This created a natural contrast that helped researchers understand the effects of reducing exposure.

Arsenic exposure decreased substantially in Araihazar during the study. The concentration in commonly used wells fell by about 70 percent as many families sought cleaner water sources. Urine tests confirmed a corresponding decline in internal exposure, averaging a 50 percent reduction that persisted through 2022.

Reduced Exposure Brings Lasting Health Benefits

These trends held true even after researchers accounted for differences in age, smoking and socioeconomic factors. Participants who remained highly exposed, or whose exposure rose over time, continued to face significantly higher risks of death from chronic diseases.

The researchers compared the health benefits of lowering arsenic to quitting smoking. The risks do not disappear immediately but drop gradually as exposure decreases.

In Bangladesh, well testing, labeling unsafe sources, drilling private wells and installing deeper government wells have already improved water safety for many communities.

“Our findings can now help persuade policymakers in Bangladesh and other countries to take emergency action in arsenic ‘hot spots’,” said co-author Kazi Matin Ahmed of the University of Dhaka.

To reach more households, the research team is collaborating with the Bangladeshi government to make well data easier to access. They are piloting NOLKUP (“tubewell” in Bangla), a free mobile app created from more than six million well tests. Users can look up individual wells, review arsenic levels and depths, and locate nearby safer options. The tool also helps officials identify communities that need new or deeper wells.

Clean Water Investments Can Save Lives

The study shows that health risks can fall even for people who were exposed to arsenic for years. This highlights an important opportunity: investing in clean water solutions can save lives within a single generation.

“Sustainable funding to support the collection, storage and maintenance of precious samples and data over more than 20 years have made this critically important work possible,” said Ana Navas-Acien, MD, PhD, Professor and Chair of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. “Science is difficult and there were challenges and setbacks along the way, but we were able to maintain the integrity of the samples and the data even when funding was interrupted, which has allowed us to reveal that preventing arsenic exposure can prevent disease.”

The study team included researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Boston University School of Public Health, the Department of Geology at the University of Dhaka and the Institute for Population and Precision Health at the University of Chicago.

The HEALS project was launched by Columbia University through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Superfund Research Program, with most U.S. collaborators based at Columbia when the study began.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251127010327.htm?

Over 38,000 Gallons of Water Have Been Recalled Due to ‘Foreign Black Substance’ Contamination

The gallon jugs were shipped to store locations in six states nationwide

By Moná Thomas

Published on January 15, 2026 11:55AM EST

Leave a Comment

**water bottles on an automated conveyor belt, Bottled water production line.**Credit : cofotoisme/Getty

NEED TO KNOW

38,043 gallons of Meijer Steam Distilled Water have been recalled
The enforcement reports cite “floating black foreign substance” contamination for the recall
The company has yet to issue a statement confirming the nature of the foreign substance

More than 38,000 gallons of bottled water have been recalled after an Enforcement Report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed a “floating black foreign substance” appearing inside gallon-sized jugs.

According to a notice published by the FDA, the recall involves Meijer Steam Distilled Water, which is sold in one-gallon plastic containers with red caps. Meijer voluntarily initiated the recall in November 2025, and it remains ongoing as officials continue to review the issue. In total, 38,043 gallons of the product are affected.

**Meijer Distilled Water, Recall.**Meijer

The affected jugs can be identified by a best-by date of Oct. 4, 2026, along with lot code 39-222 #3 and a UPC code of 041250841197. Meijer item codes tied to the recall include Product ID 472859 and Item Code 477910.

The recalled water was distributed to Meijer stores across Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Consumers who purchased distilled water in those states are urged to check their containers carefully.

Our new app is here! Free, fun and full of exclusives. Scan to download now!

According to the FDA notice, the issue stems from the presence of a black substance floating inside the water, though the exact source and composition of the material have not been publicly identified. The agency has not yet assigned a recall classification, which typically indicates how serious a potential health risk may be.

Meijer did not initially respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

Distilled water is often used for more than just drinking. Many consumers rely on it for medical devices, such as CPAP machines, according to Verywell Health, as well as for infant formula preparation and sinus rinses, where water purity is especially important. Because of that, officials say consumers should stop using the recalled water immediately, even if no health issues are apparent.

At this time, no illnesses or injuries have been reported in connection with the recalled product. Still, the FDA advises anyone who has the affected water to either dispose of it safely or return it to a Meijer store for a refund or replacement.

The FDA continues to monitor the recall and has not provided additional details about how the contamination occurred. Consumers are encouraged to review any distilled water they have on hand and follow recall guidance to avoid potential exposure.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://people.com/over-38-000-gallons-of-water-have-been-recalled-due-to-foreign-black-substance-contamination-11885997?

Drinking water source and exposure to regulated water contaminants in the California Teachers Study cohort

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 35, pages454–465 (2025)Cite this article

4058 Accesses
6 Citations
Metrics

Abstract
Background
Pollutants including metals/metalloids, nitrate, disinfection byproducts, and volatile organic compounds contaminate federally regulated community water systems (CWS) and unregulated domestic wells across the United States. Exposures and associated health effects, particularly at levels below regulatory limits, are understudied.

Objective
We described drinking water sources and exposures for the California Teachers Study (CTS), a prospective cohort of female California teachers and administrators.

Methods
Participants’ geocoded addresses at enrollment (1995–1996) were linked to CWS service area boundaries and monitoring data (N = 115,206, 92%); we computed average (1990–2015) concentrations of arsenic, uranium, nitrate, gross alpha (GA), five haloacetic acids (HAA5), total trihalomethanes (TTHM), trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). We used generalized linear regression to estimate geometric mean ratios of CWS exposures across demographic subgroups and neighborhood characteristics. Self-reported drinking water source and consumption at follow-up (2017–2019) were also described.

Results
Medians (interquartile ranges) of average concentrations of all contaminants were below regulatory limits: arsenic: 1.03 (0.54,1.71) µg/L, uranium: 3.48 (1.01,6.18) µg/L, GA: 2.21 (1.32,3.67) pCi/L, nitrate: 0.54 (0.20,1.97) mg/L, HAA5: 8.67 (2.98,14.70) µg/L, and TTHM: 12.86 (4.58,21.95) µg/L. Among those who lived within a CWS boundary and self-reported drinking water information (2017–2019), approximately 74% self-reported their water source as municipal, 15% bottled, 2% private well, 4% other, and 5% did not know/missing. Spatially linked water source was largely consistent with self-reported source at follow-up (2017–2019). Relative to non-Hispanic white participants, average arsenic, uranium, GA, and nitrate concentrations were higher for Black, Hispanic and Native American participants. Relative to participants living in census block groups in the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) quartile, participants in higher SES quartiles had lower arsenic/uranium/GA/nitrate, and higher HAA5/TTHM. Non-metropolitan participants had higher arsenic/uranium/nitrate, and metropolitan participants had higher HAA5/TTHM.

Impact
Though average water contaminant levels were mostly below regulatory limits in this large cohort of California women, we observed heterogeneity in exposures across sociodemographic subgroups and neighborhood characteristics. These data will be used to support future assessments of drinking water exposures and disease risk.

Microplastics in drinking water: quantitative analysis of microplastics from source to tap by pyrolysis–gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Research Article
Open access
Published: 05 November 2025

Volume 32, pages 25603–25617, (2025)
Cite this article

You have full access to thisopen accessarticle

Download PDF

Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Microplastics in drinking water: quantitative analysis of microplastics from source to tap by pyrolysis–gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Download PDF

1557 Accesses
10 Altmetric
1 Mention
Explore all metrics

Abstract

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.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-025-37130-8?

Press Release

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water linked to higher blood levels of these “forever” chemicals

First-of-its-kind study at ADLM 2025 lays the foundation for addressing public health threat

Share On Facebook
Share On Instagram
Share On Twitter
Share On Linkedin
>Share With Email

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.

Session information

ADLM 2025 registration is free for members of the media. Reporters can register online here: https://xpressreg.net/register/adlm0725/media/landing.asp

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.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://myadlm.org/media/press-release-archive/2025/07-july/exposure-to-pfas-in-drinking-water-linked-to-higher-blood-levels-of-these-forever-chemicals?

Study links PFAS contamination of drinking water to a range of rare cancers

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 shows water from faucet with the letters PFAS under a magnifying glass. — 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.

The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and just published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, is the first to examine cancer and PFAS contamination of drinking water in the U.S.

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].

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Study links PFAS contamination of drinking water to a range of rare cancers

Troubled waters? The future of drinking water in the U.S.

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.

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.

Media Contact

Fred Mamoun

fred.mamoun@yale.edu 203-436-2643

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://news.yale.edu/2025/08/13/troubled-waters-future-drinking-water-us?

Health risks of water contaminants

Call for smarter water rules

Share this:

EPA efforts to safeguard drinking water continue to lag

Share this:

Highlights

Abstract

Graphical abstract

Introduction

Share this:

Share this:

NEED TO KNOW

Share this:

Share this:

Abstract

Share this:

Exposure to PFAS in drinking water linked to higher blood levels of these “forever” chemicals

First-of-its-kind study at ADLM 2025 lays the foundation for addressing public health threat

Session information

About ADLM 2025

About the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM)

Share this:

Share this:

What are the benefits of fluoride? Are there any potential risks?

Why are we seeing some states ban the use of fluoride in public water systems? Why are some people suspicious of it?

Let’s move from fluoride to so-called “forever chemicals,” also known as PFAS. What are PFAS, and why are they called “forever chemicals”?

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?

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?

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?

What can people like you and me do to monitor — and even improve — the quality of the water we drink?

Media Contact

Share this: