Tag Archives: permanent

Revealing the Hidden Dangers of Permanent Chemicals in Drinking Water

Posted on by
Reply

As Earth Day approaches, this global event serves as a crucial reminder that safeguarding our environment includes paying attention to the quality of water we use at home.

A key topic gaining traction in this conversation is forever chemicals (PFAS), which are prevalent in food packaging and drinking water. Although researchers are still investigating the risks, recent regulations and advancements in home filtration systems have made it easier to minimize daily exposure.

What are Forever Chemicals?

Forever chemicals, scientifically known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), represent a vast group of synthetic chemicals characterized by strong carbon-fluorine bonds. These bonds, among the strongest in organic chemistry, grant durability, which is why PFAS have been utilized since the 1940s in products designed to resist water, oil, and heat.

Chemists have viewed these bonds as an advantage, but environmental scientists are increasingly concerned about their impact.

You’ve likely encountered PFAS in your daily life. Items like nonstick cookware, waterproof textiles, and food packaging harness PFAS chemistry. However, their durability poses significant challenges. Because the carbon-fluorine bonds are exceedingly difficult to break, these chemicals remain in the environment for a long time, earning the label “forever chemicals.”

PFOA molecules, shown here, are part of a group of persistent “forever chemicals” that can accumulate in the environment and human body – Photo credit: Getty

PFAS are also water-soluble and highly mobile. Once released, they can easily migrate through groundwater and rivers, accumulating in soil, wildlife, and humans. Current research indicates that 99 percent of people globally have detectable PFAS in their blood.

Scientists are still unraveling the implications of this widespread exposure on long-term health. Studies suggest that certain PFAS can adversely affect the immune system, cholesterol levels, reproductive health, and may increase the risk of liver damage, thyroid issues, and various cancers.

The good news is that PFAS are no longer a hidden environmental issue. They have become well-recognized concerns that are increasingly being addressed by regulators, researchers, and water utilities.

In 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will implement new drinking water standards in the US specifically targeting two of the most studied PFAS chemicals: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). The permissible limit is just 4 parts per trillion (ppt), an incredibly small amount—imagine it as one drop for every five Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Are PFAS Found in Drinking Water?

Likely—though it strongly depends on your location. A 2023 study by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that approximately 45 percent of America’s drinking water sources may contain at least one PFAS compound. Contamination has been noted in both public water sources and private wells, particularly in urban areas and near known pollution sources.

PFAS can infiltrate drinking water quite easily. When PFAS-treated products are discarded, they often end up in landfills. Over time, these items break down and can leach PFAS into the environment. Rainwater filtering through waste can create “landfill leachate,” which carries chemicals into nearby soil and groundwater.

Moreover, PFAS can also leak early in a product’s life cycle. For instance, washing waterproof and stain-resistant fabrics can release trace PFAS into wastewater. Most wastewater treatment facilities are not equipped to remove these persistent chemicals, allowing them to pass through and end up in rivers and lakes.

Photo credit: Getty

Once in the environment, PFAS can travel great distances through groundwater and rivers, ultimately contaminating household water supplies.

PFAS contamination varies significantly across the United States. Exposure risks often hinge on geography. Communities located near historic manufacturing sites, military bases, and airports face higher risks due to years of industrial activity and the use of firefighting agents. Well-documented hotspots include regions in New Jersey, North Carolina, and California.

Conversely, some of the cleanest water sources are found in less industrialized regions, particularly in Hawaii, Vermont, and the US Virgin Islands. Forested watersheds and protected mountain watersheds in states like Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota naturally filter water before it reaches reservoirs and aquifers.

While many public water utilities already meet federal safety standards, PFAS monitoring is evolving. In 2024, the EPA will introduce national drinking water limits for several PFAS compounds, mandating utilities to conduct testing and install treatment systems to reduce contaminated levels in the coming years.

If you’re curious about the water quality in your home, one of the most reliable resources is the Interactive Tap Water Database by the Environmental Working Group. Simply enter your zip code to view the contaminants detected in your local water supply.

How Can I Reduce My Exposure?

What can you do about it? The encouraging news is that exposure doesn’t have to be inevitable. You can effectively filter out most remaining PFAS at home. This is where reverse osmosis (RO) technology comes into play. Unlike natural osmosis, which seeks to equalize concentrations, RO forces water through a membrane in the opposite direction—like a precise sieve. Water molecules pass through the membrane, while larger contaminants (including PFOS, PFOA, and heavy metals) are filtered out.

Waterdrop Filters utilize this advanced technology. Testing has demonstrated that their system can reduce PFOS and PFOA levels by up to 98%. Moreover, their tankless systems save space compared to traditional counterparts and tend to waste less water.

When considering filtration, it’s essential to look beyond just efficacy; it must seamlessly fit into your daily routine. Different homes and lifestyles necessitate tailored solutions.

For instance, the “Balanced Reverse Osmosis System” (G3P800) is a high-capacity unit easily installed under the sink and requires no professional plumbing skills.

This system operates swiftly, filling a 6-ounce cup of purified water in about 5 seconds. The G3P800 is certified to NSF/ANSI Standards 42, 53, 58, and 372, capable of reducing PFOA levels by up to 98% and PFOS by up to 99%.

“Balanced Reverse Osmosis System” (G3P800)

If you require higher performance, the “Flagship RO System” (X16) is an upgraded model with ultra-fast flow, filling the same 6-ounce cup in just 2 seconds.

Designed for bustling kitchens and high water usage, it serves as a robust system for cooking, drinking, and daily activities. The X16 is certified to NSF/ANSI Standards 42, 58, and 372, achieving reductions of PFOA by up to 98.88% and PFOS by up to 98.97%.

“Flagship RO System” (X16)

If you’re renting or have a more transient lifestyle, Waterdrop’s compact undersink units (DLG-P) and are a lightweight, space-saving solution. They are relatively affordable, easy to install, and designed to function without permanent plumbing alterations. Plus, they achieve reductions of 99.7% for PFOA and 99.6% for PFOS, all while being certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 372.

Waterdrop’s Small Undersink Unit (DLG-P)

Whether you’re aiming to reduce exposure in a permanent residence or a rental apartment, RO systems exemplify how scientifically validated filtration technologies can deliver practical, everyday solutions.

The products highlighted here are available for a limited time only. The G3P800 is priced at $759 (down from $999), the X16 will be available for $1499 (down from $1999), and the DLG-P will retail for $99.99 (reduced from $109.99). Offer ends April 22nd.

Assess the water quality in your area using the EWG map by entering your zip code to learn more about the contaminants in your tap water and discover which Waterdrop Filter RO system meets your home’s specific needs. Take the first step today to reduce PFOS/PFOA by 98%. Find the ideal RO system tailored to your home and zip code.

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

New study suggests Jupiter’s Great Red Spot may not be the permanent feature reported by Cassini

Posted on by
Reply

Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is perhaps the best-known atmospheric feature and a popular icon among the solar system’s objects. Its large oval shape, contrasting red color, and long lifespan make it easily visible with a small telescope. A new study led by scientists from the University of the Basque Country, based on historical measurements of its size and motion, shows that the present-day Great Red Spot was probably first reported in 1831 and is not a permanent spot observed by Giovanni Domenico Cassini and others between 1665 and 1713.

The Permanent Spot (PS) and the early Great Red Spot (GRS): (a) drawing of the PS by GD Cassini on 19 January 1672, (b) drawing by S. Swave on 10 May 1851, showing the GRS area as a clear ellipse bounded by a depression (depicted by a dashed red line). (c) photograph taken by AA Common on 3 September 1879 using a 91 cm reflecting telescope at Ealing (London). The GRS appears as a clear "dark" ellipse because it is red and the photographic plate is sensitive to violet-blue wavelengths. (d) photograph taken at Lick Observatory on 14 October 1890 using a yellow filter. All figures show astronomical images of Jupiter (south at top, east at left) to preserve the notes on the drawings. Image courtesy of Sánchez-Lavega others., doi: 10.1029/2024GL108993.

Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is the largest and longest-lasting known vortex of any planet in the solar system.

The formation mechanism that produced this feature is unknown, and its longevity is controversial.

It was also unclear whether the Great Red Spot was the dark oval nicknamed the “Eternal Spot” that astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini and others reported between 1665 and 1713.

“Speculation about the origin of the Great Red Spot dates back to the first telescopic observations by Giovanni Domenico Cassini, who in 1665 discovered a dark oval at the same latitude as the Great Red Spot, which he named a permanent spot, because it was observed by Cassini and other astronomers until 1713,” said Professor Agustin Sánchez Lavega from the University of the Basque Country.

“For the next 118 years, traces of it were lost, and it was only after 1831 that S. Schwabe again observed a clear, almost elliptical structure at the same latitude as the GRS. This can be considered the first observation of the present-day GRS, possibly of the infant GRS.”

“Since then, the Great Red Spot has been regularly observed by telescopes and by various space probes that have visited the planet up to the present day.”

In their study, the authors analysed the change in the size of the Great Red Spot over time, its structure, and the behaviour of two meteorological structures, the former permanent spot and the Great Red Spot.

To do so, they used historical sources dating back to the mid-17th century, shortly after the telescope was invented.

“Based on our measurements of its size and motion, we infer that it is highly unlikely that the current Great Red Spot is the permanent spot observed by Cassini,” Professor Sanchez LaVega said.

“The permanent spot probably disappeared sometime between the mid-18th and 19th centuries, which would put the lifespan of the red spot at least 190 years.”

“The Red Spot, which in 1879 measured 39,000 kilometres along its longest axis, has now shrunk to about 14,000 kilometres and is becoming rounder at the same time.”

“Furthermore, since the 1970s, several space missions have studied this weather phenomenon in detail.”

“Recently, various instruments on the Juno spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter have shown that the Great Red Spot is shallow and thin compared to its horizontal length. Its vertical length is about 500 km.”

To understand how this giant whirlpool formed, the astronomers ran numerical simulations using two complementary models of the behavior of thin vortices in Jupiter’s atmosphere.

Powerful winds prevail on this giant planet, flowing along parallels that alternate in direction and latitude.

To the north of the Great Red Spot, winds blow westward at 180 km/h, while to the south, winds blow in the opposite direction, eastward at 150 km/h.

This creates huge north-south shear in the wind speed, which is the fundamental element that allows vortices to grow internally.

The study explored a variety of mechanisms to explain the formation of the Great Red Spot, including the eruption of a giant superstorm like those rarely observed around its twin planet Saturn, or the merging of several smaller vortices caused by sheared winds.

The results show that although anticyclones form in both cases, their shapes and dynamic characteristics are different from those of the present-day Great Red Spot.

“We believe that if one of these anomalies had occurred, it, or its effects in the atmosphere, would have been observed and reported by astronomers at the time,” Prof Sanchez Lavega said.

In a third set of numerical experiments, the researchers investigated how the GRS may arise from known instabilities in the winds that they believe could produce elongated cells that surround and trap the GRS.

Such cells were early red spots, the proto-Great Red Spot, whose subsequent shrinkage would give rise to the compact, rapidly rotating Great Red Spot observed in the late 19th century.

The formation of large elongated cells has already been observed during the emergence of other major vortices on Jupiter.

“In our simulations, thanks to supercomputers, we were able to find that elongated cells are stable when they rotate around the Great Red Spot at the speed of Jupiter’s winds, which is what you would expect to form due to this instability,” said Dr Enrique García Melendo, an astronomer at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia.

Using two different numerical models, the scientists concluded that if the GRS rotated slower than the surrounding winds, it would break up and the formation of a stable vortex would be impossible.

And if it were very high, the properties of the primordial Great Red Spot would be different from those of the current Great Red Spot.

“Future studies will aim to reconstruct the Great Red Spot’s shrinkage over time and elucidate in more detail the physical mechanisms underlying its persistence,” the authors wrote.

“At the same time, we try to predict whether the Great Red Spot will collapse and disappear when it reaches its size limit, as happened with Cassini’s permanent spot, or whether it will remain stable at its size limit and persist for many years.”

of result Published in a journal Geophysical Research Letters.

_____

Agustin Sanchez Lavega others2024. Origin of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. Geophysical Research Letters 51(12):e2024GL108993; doi:10.1029/2024GL108993

Source: www.sci.news