Beer: a magical mixture of hops, barley, and tiny pieces of plastic

by Liz Core

Plastics are everywhere: on the street, in our refrigerators, all over the oceans — you name it. But now they’re hitting us where it really hurts. Authors of a new study published in the latest edition of Food Additives and Contaminants found traces of plastic particles (and other debris … we’ll get to this later) in beer.

This is how the study worked: Researchers lab-tested samples of 24 varieties of German beers, including 10 of the nation’s most popular brands. Through their superpowers of microscopic analysis, the team discovered plastic microfibers in 100 percent of the tested beer samples.

Reads the study:

“The small numbers of microplastic items in beer in themselves may not be alarming, but their occurrence in a beverage as common as beer indicates that the human environment is contaminated by micro-sized synthetic polymers to a far-reaching extent.”

It’s not breaking news that plastics don’t just vanish into the ether when we’re finished with them. Unless you haven’t heard, in which case … BREAKING NEWS: The plastics we use today will stick around longer than your great-great-great-great (and then some) grandchildren.

Water bottles and sandwich bags could potentially take up to 500 years to decompose. Here’s why: plastics don’t biodegrade, they photodegrade (or, when exposed to light, disintegrate into a million little pieces). Those pieces stick around for centuries, making their way into any and all ecosystems on the planet — and, apparently, into the amber contents of our steins.

While none of the beer in the recent study contained enough plastic to be imminently harmful to public health, the plastic invasion of our brewskies is a wake-up call that plastic waste is penetrating our entire human environment.

Oh, and those other unwelcome ingredients I mentioned? They included exfoliated skin cells, tiny shards of glass, and an almost-whole dead insect. The grossness level reaches Fear Factor caliber (except for the bug — who knows, maybe they’re hopping on the bug-eating bandwagon), which can mainly be attributed to filthy work conditions in large-scale breweries.

This study’s going to be big news in Deutschland, as Germans take their beer very, very seriously. Germany boasts a 500 year-old beer-purity law insisting brewers include only three ingredients in the brewing process: barley, hops, and water (yeast was added later). At least for the next 500 years or so — or until we can eradicate plastics forever and ever, amen — they’ll have to allow a few other ingredients, too.

Source: Grist.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

 Pictures Say it Better Than Words

Sometimes words aren’t enough to describe the impact of the devastating drought in California.  The Atlantic has published a set of pictures that say it better than words.  Here is a sample:

Bidwell Marina at Lake Oroville on July 20, 2011.

 Bidwell Marina at Lake Oroville on August 19, 2014.

Please see the full Atlantic photo essay.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Super-rich make last stand against California drought

In one of America’s richest towns residents are paying more than ten times the going rate for water in a desperate attempt to stave off California’s “epochal” drought

by Nick Allen

Sept. 13, 2014

The home of Tom Cruise in Montecito, California 

Source: The Telegraph.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

How Many One-Inch Pipes Will Fit Inside a Two-Inch Pipe?

by Pure Water Annie

In this article Gazette technical wizard Pure Water Annie channels another technical writer, Ryan Lessing, of Watts Water Quality.

Flow rate and pipe size correlation is not as simple as adding pipe diameters together, such as 1″ pipe + 1″ pipe = 2″ pipe. The rule of thumb is twice the diameter equals four times the flow. You can see in the figure that four 1″ pipes can fit inside a 2″ pipe.

To estimate the pipe size required for a certain flow rate, the following formula can be used.

Diameter X Diameter X 2.448 X Velocity in Feet per Second = Gallons per Minute

Use a maximum flow velocity of 8.2 feet per second.

The formula works for estimating pipe size requirements for short runs, such as 20 linear feet, in the installation plumbing only. It is not intended for longer plumbing runs, where more details need to be taken into account.

So for 2″ pipe, the formula would call for 80 GPM peak flow rate:

2″ X 2″ X 2.448 X 8.2 = 80 GPM

Or for 1″ pipe, the formula would call for 20 GPM peak flow rate:

1″ X 1″ X 2.448 X 8.2 = 20 GPM

Notice how 80 GPM for 2″ pipe is 4 times as much as the 20 GPM for 1″.

As a final note, I’m sure you noticed how much Ryan’s logo is like mine. Except to point out that my logo was made before color pictures were invented, I’ll leave it to you to figure out who has borrowed from whom.

Ryan Lessing formerly worked for Alamo Water in San Antonio and has been with Watts in San Antonio for several years. He is an active supporter of the Texas Water Quality Association chapter and is a past-president of the organization.  He is also a bluegrass musician and a very nice person.

Fracking’s Wastewater, Poorly Understood, Is Analyzed for First Time

By Zahra Hirji

Researchers determined general chemical footprint of one liter samples, but not relative concentrations, and call for further study.

A new study in the journal Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts offers one of the most comprehensive analyses yet of what’s in a type of waste called produced water, a poorly understood and controversial by-product of fracking.

This peer-reviewed study by a pair of researchers at Rice University in Houston shows that while fracking-produced water shouldn’t be allowed near drinking water, it’s less toxic than similar waste from coal-bed methane mining. It also revealed how the contents of this waste differ dramatically across three major shale plays: Texas’ Eagle Ford, New Mexico’s Barnett and Pennsylvania’s Marcellus.

Fracking involves injecting a slurry of water, chemicals and sand down a well to crack open shale bedrock and extract oil and gas. The study defines produced water as the water that flows out of a well after fossil fuel extraction starts. It includes some of the slurry first injected down a well, as well as naturally occurring water and materials from deep underground, such as salts, heavy metals and radioactive material.

Previous studies have examined the salinity of this waste and even some of the inorganic chemicals. Building from that, the Rice researchers identified 25 inorganic chemicals in the waste. Of those, at least six were found at levels that would make the water unsafe to drink—barium, chromium, copper, mercury, arsenic and antimony. Depending on the chemical, consuming it at high levels can cause high blood pressure, skin damage, liver or kidney damage, stomach issues, or cancer.

But the study’s innovation involved examining and identifying over 50 organic chemicals in the waste—an area that’s been little studied previously. Some of these are potentially dangerous, depending on their concentrations, such as the cancer-causing toluene and ethylbenzene; however, such levels were not provided.

Study author Andrew Barron said the results showed that produced water “was not quite as bad as we thought.”

For example, a related cancer-causing chemical called benzene, which is often seen in oil-and-gas products and waste, was not detected. Moreover, another set of cancer-causing chemicals found in similar wastewater associated with coal-bed methane mining was not observed.

Researchers did not look closely at the waste’s naturally occurring radioactive materials.

Wilma Subra, an environmental consultant from Louisiana, told InsideClimate News in an email that the lack of benzene was “surprising.” Subra, who works extensively in South Texas’ Eagle Ford, added that she would have liked the study to cover radioactive materials, which Texans are especially concerned about.

Cracking the Case

According to the study authors, the most surprising find was the presence of group of organic compounds called halocarbons, some of which are potentially toxic. These chemicals are not native to the geology of the area being drilled; nor are they found in the man-made fluids purposefully injected down a well during fracking.

Eventually, the researchers cracked the chemical case and fingered waste treatment as the source. A common type of waste treatment uses chlorine to strip dirty water of bacteria. When this chlorinated water is then injected down a well, it potentially reacts with materials in the local geology to form halocarbons. In other words, researchers found traces of a waste treatment process in pre-treated waste. How does that happen?

To understand, let’s walk through the waste-handling process.

A single fracked well can use over 2 million gallons of water. Instead of constantly relying on freshwater for this, drillers are increasingly treating and then reusing produced water, along with other types of fracking wastewater.

Now imagine that there are two wells: A and B. For Well A, drillers use only freshwater. In the resulting waste, there are no halocarbons. But some of that waste then gets treated with chlorine.

A mix of freshwater and treated water is then shipped to the second site and injected into Well B. According to the researchers, the chlorinated water likely then reacts with the naturally occurring salty water deep underground. This reaction forms entirely new chemicals—halocarbons—that show up in Well B’s waste. Since so many operators are reusing waste at current operations, it makes sense that halocarbons are seen across all the study’s samples, which were collected from wells less than a year old.

Barron, the study author, said the observed levels of these inorganic compounds are minimal and “not a cause for panic.”

At higher levels, however, some of the observed halocarbons—including a type called organobromides, which has been associated with liver damage—could pose a public health risk. And their unanticipated presence indicates that the way wastewater is treated should be reviewed, said Barron, a professor of material science who holds the Welch Chair of Chemistry at Rice. Starting this year, Barron also serves as a scientist at the Energy Safety Research Institute in the United Kingdom, a country looking to expand fracking.

The investigation, which took more than a year, has implications for oil-and-gas operators in water-strapped states such as Texas, which is in the midst of a drought. Such states are increasingly looking to reuse wastewater rather than continually relying on precious fresh water. Just last year, Texas oil-and-gas regulators at the Railroad Commission passed new rules encouraging operators to reuse more of their waste from oil-and-gas drilling.

“What the authors have shown here is interesting and intriguing,” said Lee Ferguson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. Ferguson, who was not involved with the research, called it a starting point for further study.

A First Step

The study was funded by the Robert A. Welch Foundation, which supports research in chemistry, and the Ser Cymru programme, a health-and-environment research initiative launched by the Welsh government.

According to Barron, the authors first encountered produced water in their research for the Navy. They were looking at ways to design wetsuits that were salt permeable but impermeable to oil and gas molecules. Their cursory encounter with produced water made them realize there was still a lot to know about it—and that interest grew into this separate analysis.

Wearing gloves, Barron and his colleague, Samuel Maguire-Boyle, gathered produced water samples in specially cleaned one-liter Mason jars from three different well sites in the three different shale regions. At each site, they collected approximately 19 jars of produced water from storage tanks that connect directly to a well.

The report details the analyses of only three sites, one from each shale play. However, Barron noted, samples were collected from a dozen well sites and the three samples covered in the report were representative of that larger survey.

After stripping the water of any solids, the scientists used mass spectrometry to analyze the liquid. This analytical technique provides a unique signal for each targeted compound. The researchers then matched these signals with those from an industry database.

According to Duke’s Ferguson, this method is good for determining a general chemical footprint of a sample but it’s not always exact, because many compounds have similar profiles. To be absolutely confident in their results, he suggested that the researchers perform additional analysis. Moreover, he pointed out that the paper doesn’t provide the relative concentrations of the organic compounds, making it very difficult to determine their levels.

Barron said the group did additional analysis to determine relative levels “within a narrow range,” but he said more samples are needed to confirm them.

Barron hopes to replicate this study eventually at more well sites and determine how the composition of produced water varies within a single shale play.

Source: Inside Climate News.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Gillibrand seeks federal ban on plastic microbeads in personal care products

 By T.J. Pignataro

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand calls herself a recovered user of personal care products that contain plastic microbeads.

The senator said so Friday in Buffalo as she urged a federal ban on the tiny plastics that are often added to facial cleaners, soaps, cosmetics and toothpaste.

“I thought they were great,” Gillibrand said of the products.

Then she learned about the scientific studies.

The findings show microplastic particles – about the size of a grain of salt – are rapidly accumulating in the Great Lakes, on its beaches as well as in fish and wildlife.

“I thought, ‘Oh, my God, I’m using something that could actually harm our lakes and our rivers and our streams and could actually harm our food supply?’ ” Gillibrand said. “So, I was so concerned immediately as a person who bought these products, that I had to do my part.”

Using Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fontana Boathouse and the Niagara River as a backdrop, Gillibrand said she will introduce legislation in Congress to ban microplastics from personal care products.

A bill to ban the microplastics was pushed in the State Legislature earlier this year, but the legislation never made it to the floor of the legislature. Illinois lawmakers passed the first law of its kind in the nation, banning the sale in that state by 2019. Ohio and California are considering similar measures.

Great Lakes scientists, including Sherri A. Mason, an environmental sciences professor at SUNY Fredonia, found last year for the first time that the tiny plastics were polluting all of the Great Lakes, with the highest concentrations in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

After personal care products are used, the microbeads are washed down the drain. They’re small enough to pass through wastewater filters and are discharged from the plants with treated wastewater.

“Our 20th-century wastewater infrastructure couldn’t even contemplate or be prepared to handle 21st-century pollutants,” said Jill Jedlicka, the executive director of Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, who supports a ban on microbeads.

Microbeads, toxic algae, pharmaceuticals and nanoparticles, Jedlicka said, “have the potential to undermine decades of progress of Great Lakes restoration.”

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a 110-member coalition of public officials from Duluth, Minn., to Quebec City, has pressed for federal bans on the microplastics in the United States and Canada, as well as at the state and provincial levels.

“Everyone knows it’s the right thing to do,” said Paul A. Dyster, the Niagara Falls mayor who also serves as the regional director for the initiative.

Microbeads not only plasticize waters and beaches, but they can wreak additional havoc when legacy contaminants like PCBs bind with them and are then consumed by fish and other wildlife.

More than 350,000 of the tiny plastic beads can be found in a single tube of face wash, according to the 5 Gyres Institute, a global environmental organization fighting plastic pollution in water.

Consumers can screen products for microbeads by looking for “polyethylene” or “polypropylene” in the list of ingredients.

Gillibrand said many natural and safer options can be used instead of plastic microbeads.

The options include ground up natural shells or husks, which some companies are already using.

The goal, officials said, is to make that the industry standard.

A federal ban on plastic additives is the way to fairly achieve that, Gillibrand said.

She didn’t give a timetable for passage of a federal law, but she said she would introduce legislation in the U.S. Senate immediately.

“As a mom, I don’t want to worry there are PCBs in the fish my children are eating,” Gillibrand said. “As a legislator, we want to nip this in the bud now. This is a hazard that will only grow.”

Source: Buffalo News.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

People are swimming in a plastic sea

by John Cordina

No part of the Mediterranean Sea is immune to plastic pollution, and area to the east of Malta hosts a particularly high concentration of such debris, a research expedition has discovered.

The research expedition, Tara Méditerranée, is the tenth expedition being organised by French non-profit organisation Tara Expeditions, which was established in 2003 by fashion designer agnès b and her son Étienne Bourgois. The expeditions are carried out through the non-profit’s schooner – the Tara.

The seven-month expedition, which began in May and which is being carried out under the patronage of the EU’s Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, aims to carry out a scientific study concerning plastic pollution, as well as promote awareness of environmental challenges in the Mediterranean region.

The Tara arrived in Malta on Thursday and set sail once more yesterday, a visit which helped fulfil the expedition’s educational aims though an exhibition called “Our Ocean Planet” in St George’s Square, Valletta, the screening of the documentary Planet Ocean and press briefings.

In comments to The Malta Independent, the expedition’s scientific director Gabriel Gorsky – the head of the Oceanology Observatory of Villefranche-sur-Mer, which is part of the Paris-based Pierre-et-Marie Curie University – explained that as the Tara sails around the Mediterranean, the scientists on board are quantifying the plastic fragments they come across, measuring their size and weight and identifying the types of plastic found at sea.

Dr Gorsky added that the team is also analysing the organic pollutants which adhere to these plastic fragments, as well as the microorganisms which colonise them.

Plastic in your plate

The development and spread of plastics may have transformed society, but it has also had a significant effect on the world’s seas, accounting for the vast majority of marine debris.

The most obvious effect is the accumulation of waste along the coast, but the effect of plastic waste is far more wide-ranging than the creation of an unsightly nuisance.

Most plastics do not readily biodegrade: their slow degradation is typically the result of exposure to sunlight. But this process, which breaks down plastic waste into smaller and smaller fragments over the years, may only make the matter worse.

The breaking down of plastic material can lead to the leaching of toxic chemicals which have been used in its manufacture.

Threats to marine life include the potential of poisoning, but also the risk being harmed or killed through entanglement in plastic waste or through the accidental ingestion of debris, which can lead to starvation due to a blocked digestive tract.

That marine creatures such as turtles end up swallowing plastic is well known, but another reality is the consumption of small particles by filter-feeding creatures such as barnacles and various tiny organisms, a process which can lead to plastics making their way up the food chain.

Research on what happens to plastic debris and its effect on marine ecosystems – including their possible future impact on the oceans and on humans alike – is still lacking, and the Tara Méditerranée expedition is striving to help fill this gap.

The probable entry of plastic fragments – and all the pollutants and microorganisms they may be carrying – into the food chain is also a subject that has been virtually unexplored, and according to Dr Gorsky, the risk of such plastic waste contaminating seafood is all too real.

“We are looking at how the plastic may cause bioaccumulation in your plate,” he explained.

The risk of bioaccumulation of mercury in seafood is already well known: pregnant women, in particular, are often advised to limit their consumption of certain fish such as tuna. Whether plastic contamination may present a similar threat in the future remains to be seen.

Plastic everywhere

Asked to state what the findings of the expedition have been so far, Dr Gorsky explained that what is being collected at present will need to be analysed once the expedition is over in an appropriate laboratory. But one particular fact is already clear.

“There is not one parcel of the Mediterranean Sea that is devoid of plastic or plastic fragments… they are everywhere,” he maintained.

Dr Gorsky added that Malta is not only not an exception to the rule, but revealed that the ship has encountered very high concentrations of plastic waste to the east of the country, although their extent will only be properly quantified once tests are carried out.

“However, there is a general problem, not just related to Malta,” he emphasised.

The Mediterranean may only account for 0.8% of the ocean surface, but it hosts close to 8% of global marine biodiversity. Around 450 million people live along its coast, and almost 30% of the world’s maritime traffic is concentrated in the Mediterranean; factors which contribute to the increasing presence of plastics and other pollutants.

Tara Expeditions argues that it is urgent to find concrete solutions to the problem, noting that many of the solutions – including water treatment, waste management, biodegradable plastics, promoting sustainable tourism and creating Marine Protected Areas – have been proposed decades ago by the Barcelona Convention for Protection against Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU itself.

“People must be aware that they are swimming in a ‘plastic sea’, and that this plastic hosts harmful pollutants and organisms,” Dr Gorsky maintained.

“Everyone must contribute to decrease the amount of plastic waste.”

 The Malta Independent

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

University of Texas at Arlington researchers have unveiled a study that found potentially unhealthy levels of arsenic in water wells scattered throughout North Texas.

The study, conducted last year, involved 100 water wells across the Barnett Shale, 10 of them in Denton County. An 11-member team of UTA scientists found that 30 percent of wells within 1.8 miles of active natural gas drilling showed an increase in heavy metals, including arsenic.

“To find that high of arsenic concentrations was alarming,” said Dr. Zacariah Hildenbrand, a UTA biochemist. “This is indirect evidence that drilling does affect the water.”

Researchers compared their results with previous water tests conducted in the same area before the Barnett Shale gas boom exploded across the region 10 years ago. They believe the vibration from drilling or hydraulic fracturing operations shakes the pipes in nearby wells, causing arsenic-contaminated rust to fall into fresh water. The scientists referred to those vibrations as “pressure waves from drilling activity.”

Alex Mills, the head of an oil and gas industry trade association, said he doubts the study’s findings.

“If they’re talking about drills shaking it free, that’s a little farfetched,” said Mills, president of Texas Alliance of Energy Producers in Wichita Falls.

Mills, who has 30 years in the oil and gas industry, said natural gas wells are drilled so deep that vibrations could never make it to much shallower water wells. Even if homes are located within 500 or 600 feet of the drilling site, they wouldn’t feel the vibration of the hydraulic fracturing because of the gas well’s depth, he said.

“I’ve never heard or even came close to hearing that hydraulic fracturing is so vicious, so earth-shattering to shake lose rust from water wells,” he said.

Researchers acknowledged that other factors might have caused the water well contamination, including “hydrogeo chemical changes from lowering of the water table or industrial accidents such as faulty gas well casings.”

According to the UTA study, which was published in Environmental Science & Technology journal, “The maximum concentration of arsenic detected in a sample from an active [gas well] extraction area was almost 18 times higher than both the maximum concentration among the nonactive/reference area samples and historical levels from this region.”

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant limit for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. Anything over that is considered unsafe. The UTA team found that 29 out of 90 water wells exceeded the EPA standard. Methanol and ethanol, two chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, were also detected in 29 percent of water samples, according to the study.

Epidemiologists say arsenic, a heavy metal, can threaten people’s health and lead to death.

“Gastrointestinal effects, reno-cardio effects, neurological effects — we could talk for hours about the harmful effects of arsenic,” said Juan Rodriquez, chief epidemiologist at Denton County Health Department.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that ingesting low levels of arsenic can cause nausea and vomiting, decrease in red and white blood cells, abnormal heart rhythm, damage to blood vessels and a sensation of “pins and needles” in the feet.

Arsenic is also a known human carcinogen, according to the Department of Health and Human Services and the EPA.

In 2011, the Texas Railroad Commission reported that 93,000 gas wells have been drilled in Texas since the hydraulic fracturing booms began. More than 15,300 of them are located in the Barnett Shale, which covers Denton, Johnson, Montague, Tarrant and Wise counties. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2013 that more than 15 million Americans live within a mile of an oil or gas well.

The UT-Arlington researchers plan more studies to understand the effects of natural gas drilling on water quality.

“It was our very first crack at groundwater in the area,” said Hildenbrand, a research associate at UTA.

Now they’re gathering a larger sample of 500 private water wells, 130 of them in Denton County.

“It’s a polarizing issue,” Hidenbrand said. “Nobody really understands what’s going on.”

Waiting and worrying

Jeffrey and Tracey Schmitt’s water well has been tested as part of the next UTA study. They have been waiting weeks for the test results and worrying about the fate of their well water.

When they built their home in Amyx Ranch, a residential community a few miles outside of Ponder, they never imagined the possibility that their water could be contaminated.

“I don’t know what we’ll do if it comes back positive,” said Tracey Schmitt, who purchased the five acres with her husband.

They built the home as an investment and plan to sell it after their children finish high school. But now all of that could change. If high levels of arsenic are found in their well water, the property might become impossible to sell.

“I’d hate to have to cook with bottled water,” she said.

The Schmitts said they’ve had problems with their water well since drilling it nearly 10 years ago. They reached water at 450 feet, but it tasted bad and discharged a layer of fine sand. They couldn’t afford to drill deeper to reach the next water table, so they bought bottled water to drink and used well water for cooking and showering.

“My husband thought it was because of fracking,” Tracey Schmitt said.

Across the highway from Amyx Ranch, roads lead to Devon Energy Corporation gas well sites. Company signs line the roadway between Denton and Ponder. Devon operates more than 40 wells located in Ponder. The company is one of the biggest operators for extracting gas in the region.

Company spokesman Chip Minty declined to comment on the UTA study because he had not read it.

At Amyx Ranch, the Schmitts are awaiting results of their well test, which researchers say could be a few more weeks.

“I’m so praying the test doesn’t come back positive because we don’t want to retire here,” Tracey Schmitt said.

Comment on the article above by read Lis Amel:

We lived 5 years near a military base reserve that bombs continuously throughout the year. When the temperature was just right during the bombing, our community of neighbors had their windows and driveway’s crack. We were fortunate that our windows never cracked but our costly driveway did. All 32 neighbors had wells and we all had issues with our wells, where one day the well was fine and after heavy overnight bombing practice the well had particles. County water was brought out to 2 cul-de-sacs in an attempt to help those who needed water, because neighbors said their wells suddenly stopped working. Our well was only 30 feet from one neighbor and 40 from a second one. Water taps were installed for each home so we could connect when the well stopped working. Our well had heavy metals detected twice in the first year, but then would settle down and none was detected. We had 3 filter systems installed on our lines just to make sure we were not taking heavy metal showers. The underground bombing for military practice was a suspect as to why the wells suddenly had issues. Every neighbor we had wanted out of there. Now we are in Oklahoma where when the first earthquake hit last fall, we had to ask if they were doing underground bombing in the area, which they do not. We are so tired of living where the ground shakes, that we are now declining to move back to our home state of Texas for retirement. Regardless of how many benefits there are to Veterans there, the water issues, earth shaking and possible sinkholes, have us looking elsewhere.

Source: Denton Record-Chronicle.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Iron Stains from Irrigation Wells: A Water Treatment Challenge

One of the big problems of water treatment is how to deal with iron in water used for irrigation.

When well water with iron is used for watering landscaping, it leaves stains on buildings, sidewalks, and driveways. Although homeowners often try to cure the problem with conventional iron filters, this approach is seldom satisfactory. The problem is that iron filters have a limited capacity between regeneration sessions. If used for water inside the home, an iron filter only has to process a few hundred gallons of water per day at a moderate flow rate. The filter has time to backwash and renew itself at night. With irrigation applications, however, the filter might be required to process thousands of gallons per day at a high flow rate. Iron filters used for significant irrigation jobs work only when they are sized very large, and usually multiple filters are required so that one can be regenerated while others are in service.

Alternative Treatment

To keep iron from staining buildings and walks, an alternative to filtering is sequestration of the iron. In this process, iron is not removed from the water but simply chemically bound so that it does not cause staining.

Treatment is done by injecting the concentrated chemical into the water line, either with an electric chemical pump or with a passive siphoning system powered by the flow of water itself. Both systems work well.

This  Stenner Peristaltic Pump can be used to feed a sequestering solution (poly-phosphate) into the stream of irrigation water. 

Once the system is in place, upkeep involves only occasionally adding the sequestering agent to the solution tank.

Sequestration can be accomplished using either standard electric feed pumps of the type used to feed chlorine or specially designed feeders that use the force of the irrigation water itself flowing through the pipe to power the injection process. The non-electric systems are more accurate if flow rates vary and they are easier to set up because they adjust automatically to changing flow rates.

The  chemical injection system shown above is made specifically for wells used for landscape irrigation. (This product is no longer available.) Needing no electricity, the tank feeds a stain-prevention solution into the irrigation water as it flows through the pipe toward sprinklers. 

Israel Has Officially Banned Fluoridation of Its Drinking Water

by Douglas Main