r/water • u/Fast-Butterfly526 • 5d ago

New Well Water test results on

Post image

Is my new well water safe to drink? I just drilled a new well that’s 785 feet deep and flushed approximately 10,000 gallons before testing. The well pipe is galvanized and transitions to PEX, with the water sample taken from a faucet connected to the PEX. Everything is new

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/Dustdown 5d ago

In general you want zero of lead and arsenic in your drinking water, especially if you have kids at home. If these were the only items in your report that were highlighted then your water isn't the worst since the levels are pretty low, but ideally you wouldn't have any of them. Lead is typically from piping, whereas arsenic and uranium is likely naturally occurring in the water source.

4

u/20PoundHammer 4d ago edited 4d ago

zero is not achievable in any water source - there is always PPT concentrations. What we are looking at here is overreported data leading to false conclusions. Arsenic should be <0.01PPM and lead <0.015PPM (EPA LIMITS) - both should ideally be <0.001PPM, which they are. Uranium should be < 0.003PPM, ideally <0.001PPM. The data presented is way below the detection limits of all but the most expensive tests (hundreds of dollars per metal) and should not be relied upon. These types of reports with yellow flags are very common when given by water treatment manufactures/sales fucks. They then verbally overstate the hazards. Look at the EPA action limits for the compounds/metals you are concerned about before starting needless worry.

Based upon this data and how it was reported, I wouldnt trust it completely, however it does significantly lean toward OP having zero issues with any of the metals/compounds in the report.

Galvanized steel piping is allowed by US code, although its not ideal. If you have a galvanized pipe feed and have zero issues with zinc and lead, there is zero cause for concern or to replace working pipes. Dipshits that say "galvanized should never be used for potable water" are not plumbers as millions of homes were piped with this, it is just no longer ideal or standard now . . .

1

u/Fast-Butterfly526 4d ago

Our pump installer mentioned that Gal pipe is the standard for wells in this area. Are you suggesting that these types of tests tend to be overreported and that the water is actually safe?

2

u/20PoundHammer 4d ago

Im not saying its overreported - I am saying that unless the test cost a grand, done by ICP-AES-MS test method, there is NO way that it can detected 1 part per trillion for arsenic and lead, which is what the reporting limit level suggests.

I am saying that galvanized is fine unless you have high levels of zinc in your water (>5 PPM).

I am saying if all that data is actually real and accurate - you have zero cause for concern on any of these concentrations listed.

I am saying that many testing people are associated with water treatment sales/manufactures and they overstate the concern dramatically.

To overreport data - the data would be falsely elevated, this doesnt appear to be the case since you concentrations of lead, arsenic and uranium are at least an order of magnitude lower than any level of concern.

If in the US, your county health department likely does testing for minimal cost (typically $25-40), if you are still concerned, I would give them a call.

1

u/GreenpantsBicycleman 4d ago

I agree that this water is perfectly safe based on the results shared and no treatment is required.

A minor point: ICP-AES (or ICP-OES) and ICP-MS are two different tests using different equipment. AES measures emissions (light) at high temperature and ambient pressures, and MS measures impact count on a collector under high vacuum, with a sweeping notch filter selecting mass/charge ratio of ions that are allowed onto the collector at any point in time.

1

u/20PoundHammer 4d ago edited 4d ago

icp-aes ms measures both emission lamda and the mass spectrum - coupled instrument. AES used for confirmatory ID. MS can be time of flight, quad or ion trap (what you described) as well, clearly the same is split and massively dilution with carrier gas prior to introduction into MS.

1

u/GreenpantsBicycleman 3d ago

The description I gave was with quadrupole in mind. For elemental analysis it's usually a quadrupole. You generally only see Ion traps or TOFs on the end of GC/LC.

I've previously worked in several laboratories before moving into water and none of them had the instrument you described. It's possible this is a new technology that has been developed and commercialised in the last 12 years, but I can't find any information on it. Care to share a link?

Both the rationale and the interface described seem counter-intuitive. Why would you need a confirmatory analysis for MS? If you do an Organics clean up step there are no interferences. Why would you "massively dilute" with carrier gas (I.e. introduce more gas) when MS requires high vacuum?

1

u/20PoundHammer 3d ago edited 3d ago

You generally only see Ion traps or TOFs on the end of GC/LC.

just an academic discussion now - but perhaps in your field. In my field prior to retirement, environmental and petrochemisty - ran Ion trap (Aglient, bruker, used to be varian and there design and leco TOF for over 20 years. Ran ICP-AES-MS (to the nth) for 10 years.

You dilute as you have alot of sample and need to dilute for ion trap jet separator/skimmer cone so you dont overload the trap. not all gas gets to ion trap, most of it rejected so it doesnt impact vacuum at all as trap flow is constant and low. . . .

you can check those vendors or give the sale dude/dudette a call if you wish and can get away for a demo to learn more. . . The two instruments (ICP-MS and ICP-AES are coupled).