- Today on BRStv Investigates,
is it worth sending in a 30 dollar ICP water analysis test
for your tap water before deciding on buying an RODI unit
or before you buy new filters for the unit you already have.
Whether you're on city municipal water supply
or well water, today's testing might save you money
and potential headaches in the long run.
(drum music)
Hi I'm Randy with this Friday's BRStv Investigates
where we put popular reefing gear, theories, and methods
to the test by experimenting on our own tanks
so you don't have to experiment on yours
and in today's experiment,
we used Coralvue's ICP Water Analysis Test
to send out seven water samples
from four different city municipality water sources
as well as three different well water sources
to compare differences and similarities between
in order to decide
if a 30 dollar ICP water analysis test kit
can help you choose the right RODI water filtration unit
or if it can help you find a new filtration approach
for your current system.
We get questions all the time from people
who ask if they need a more advanced RODI
for well water versus city water,
or even if they need a RODI system to begin with,
and up until now,
there really hasn't been a straight answer,
so today we plan to change that
by answering the question,
could a 30 dollar ICP-analysis of your tap water
help you decide if you need a RODI unit or
maybe most importantly for most of you,
upgraded RODI filters?
Let's find out.
Our experiment begins today with seven water samples
that we gathered from a variety of water sources
within the Minneapolis metro area
and within a 40 mile radius surrounding area.
Four water samples were collected
from different treated municipality water sources
ranging from river to ground water
while the other three were collected from
untreated home well water supplies.
We sent in all seven samples for an ICP-analysis report
of 40 different elements
using the ICP Water Analysis Test Kits from Coralvue
and today after a three day turnaround,
our results are back,
but before we get into the results for each water sample
let's take a brief look at the diversity
of our seven water samples
starting with the treated municipality city water.
City sample number one and city sample number two
were collected within less than five miles of each other
with city sample one coming from the BRS tap
which is directly sourced from the Mississippi River
filtered, treated, then disinfected
and delivered to the greater city of Minneapolis.
However just five miles away,
the city sample number two water
is sourced from ground water
derived from large wells and aquafers,
then is also filtered, treated, and disinfected
before being delivered to the tap.
As for city sample number three and number four,
we collected them from 20 miles south
and 20 miles north of BRS,
and both sources are also derived
from groundwater wells and aquafers.
I was actually shocked
while researching the groundwater aquafers
for these two municipal water sources,
when I noticed
that they had a couple aquafer sources in common
even though they were 40 miles apart from each other.
This prompted me to dig a little deeper
where I found this map from the USGS
of one of those shared aquafers,
where the expanse of its reach
across parts of seven different states
is pretty amazing when you think about it.
We also collected three different well water sources
which are untreated sources
derived from direct taps
into underground aquafers to your home.
Our samples for well number one and well number two
were both collected within five miles of bulk reef supply
and both near different areas within the same shore
of a local lake in the greater Minneapolis,
so it will definitely be interesting
to see how they compare
while well sample number three was collected
very close to the Mississippi River,
about 20 miles north of BRS,
which presumably will have
completely different ICP-analysis profile
than the other two, but let's find out.
Before we get too far into today's results,
there are a couple of things we need to keep in mind,
the first is that
although we can use available ICP-analysis testing,
to provide us with a clearer picture
into some of the elements that make up our drinking water,
they are definitely not designed,
nor should be reasonably interpreted,
as the most accurate testing method available.
There are entire government agencies in place
whose primary role is specifically designed
to run analyzing the public's drinking water
and if you want to dive even further into the breadth
of what those testing methods are,
you can absolutely find them on the EPA's website.
I don't doubt that the aquarium industry ICP test kits
that cost us around 30 bucks or more
are a far cry from the accuracy and cost
that goes into governmental drinking water testing,
so we should have some reasonable expectations
for the results.
Because of that, and for today's experiment,
we're not gonna try to decipher or speculate
as to each element's results and what they mean,
but rather the point of today's experiment
is to try and draw out similarities
and notable differences
between our city and well water samples
in order to find out if there's a better way
of choosing a more adequate RODI filtration approach
for your specific water source
or if you even need one to begin with.
The ICP-analysis kits we use for today's experiment
tests for 40 different elements
but rather than walk through an entire hour
of going through each one,
we're gonna slim the list down
by removing elements that were either not registered
or below one part per billion
for each of the seven water samples
which includes elements like silver,
beryllium, cadmium, cerium, cobalt, iron, gallium,
lanthanum, molybdenum, nickel, lead, antimony,
selenium, tin, titanium, and vanadium.
Along with that, we're also going to slim the list down
by skipping over the elements that are present
or in some cases, even desirable in sea water,
such as calcium, chloride, potassium, magnesium,
manganese, sodium, and strontium.
So after pulling out those handful of elements
we're left with 17 to explore today
so with that let's get started
with our first element aluminum,
where we can see that
each of the seven water samples registered,
very small amounts,
none of which were above three parts per billion.
Arsenic is next, where again,
we have super low levels, below two parts per billion
across the board, with three having zero.
Two samples, both in city and well water
had boron levels up into the six parts per billion range,
yet overall each sample tested relatively low.
With Barium, we see levels
in the tenths of a part per million,
but nothing really much higher
than a quarter of a part per million
and the BRS city sample one was the lowest,
registering at just two parts per billion.
Bromine is next where we see a wide range of results
from zero to 10 to as much as 40 parts per million,
all within a 40 mile radius,
probably one of the starkest contrast here
is that all other city samples besides city number four
tested the lowest,
however what we're seeing doesn't necessarily mean
we should expect that the water next door,
or even 20 miles away has a similar elemental profile.
Similarly to the first few elements tested,
chromium registered in three of the seven water samples,
however all were under two parts per billion,
so really not much at all.
Up next is copper which is one of those elements
that perks our ears as reefing hobbyists,
where all seven water samples had measurable levels
of copper, most notably was well sample number two
where there was nearly a half a part per million copper,
yet less than a mile away in well sample number one,
near the shores of the same Minneapolis lake,
copper tested at undetectable levels
at just one part per billion,
and only five miles away
in the BRS tap water city number one,
also tested very low levels of copper
coming in at just two parts per billion.
So it's tough to say whether these copper levels
were derived directly from the water sources themselves,
or if the type of plumbing may have contributed,
or maybe something different altogether,
the important thing to note here
is that because we tested with ICP for these water sources,
we are now more informed of the levels of copper present,
and regardless of proximity,
it seems no two water sources are the same.
Let's take a look at the Iodine results
for our water samples where again,
we see all seven samples tested for differing levels,
from 0.12 parts per million at the lowest,
and at the highest we see well in city sample number three
at or slightly above one and a half parts per million.
There were very faint amounts of lithium
in nearly all water samples
with the exception of city number four,
yet still none tested above two parts per billion.
Phosphorus was also detected in each water sample
where half tested around one part per million or more,
some over 1.5, and way higher than what we like,
but at the same time,
there was one sample at 0.17 parts per million,
which may not be a huge concern.
Phosphorous is another one of those elements
that perks our reefing hobbyist ears,
as being something that we want to avoid
from purposefully adding to our tanks,
and another big part
of why reefers choose RO filtration to begin with.
Rubidium tested under a quarter of a part per million
for each sample with well sample number three
and city samples three and four,
registering as zero or nearly undetectable
while sulfur was detected in all seven samples
ranging from around three to 15 parts per million
across the board.
Silicon is next, which is also one of those elements,
like copper and phosphorus,
that we try to avoid in our tanks,
and in this case,
each water sample registered measurable levels of silicon
ranging from five and a half parts to million
upwards of nearly 13 and a half.
Silicon and silicates are some of the trickiest elements
to remove from our sourced water
since the most effective filtration approach
to remove them is directly tied
to the specific type of DI resin we use.
As we can see across
our seven different water source examples,
there can be as much as double,
or nearly triple the amount of silicon present
in our water within less than a 40 mile radius.
To round out the remaining elements for today's experiment,
Thallium was present in each water sample,
but none higher than four parts per billion.
Uranium also registered in each,
yet still all were measured until six parts per billion,
only two out of seven water samples
registered as having levels of tungsten,
at less than three parts per billion,
and lastly, zinc was detected in three water samples
where well and city sample number two
were shown to have levels
of 0.35 and 0.23 parts per million respectively.
Answering today's question,
could a 30 dollar ICP-analysis help us decide
if we need a more or less
aggressive RODI filtration approach,
for making ultra-pure water for our salt water tanks,
I'll vote for a seven out of ten on our reef certainty scale
because in almost all water samples we tested today,
there were some obvious elements present,
which we actively tried to avoid
or remove from our tanks,
and of those elements like copper, phosphorus, and silicone,
each can be reduced or removed with reverse osmosis
or a more aggressive DI filtration.
However, what these 30 dollar ICP tests don't capture,
are those organic compounds that may be present
in our tap water,
such as volatile organics, pesticides, herbicides,
which can also be removed with RODI filtration methods,
yet may require more advanced testing
to detect in your specific water source.
Determining how aggressive your water filtration should be
from an ICP water test can be a bit tricky,
and you'll need to know what you're looking for,
like silica for instance,
which can be difficult for RODI to remove
without some extra thought and effort
put into choosing proper filters
like pro-series DI resin configurations.
What the ICP test won't tell you,
is if you need a better sediment filter
or whether a single carbon block will be sufficient
for your particular water source,
this is where simply choosing the best option for both
will likely be more of a benefit
than choosing filters that may underperform
and the cost difference between the two options
probably works out to be a difference
of just cents per month.
Although testing your water with ICP
may better help you determine whether a 75 gallon per day
or a hundred gallon per day RO membrane
would be best suited for your particular water source,
since many of those elements tested
can be removed by the RO membrane,
so if you detect higher contaminates in your water,
you'd likely be best served choosing a RO membrane
for the higher rejection rate
to remove them more efficiently.
However some of those elements may break through
the RO membrane altogether,
which is where the right choice of DI resin configuration
can benefit the quality of water reproduced
before it goes into our tank.
This is specifically true of elements
like silicon or silicas,
which are most benefited a single bed
pro resin series configuration
where the anion and cation resins
are utilized individually on their own,
followed by a mixed bed of both
for a polishing catch-all stage.
Okay so if the most difficult to remove contaminants
like ammonia and silicates are best filtered out
with specific configurations of DI resin,
the next question we need to know is,
what is the ICP test missing?
I can tell you that included in these is not just ammonia,
which is present in about 50 percent of water supplies,
but also specific forms of silica,
which are definitely hard to remove.
Ryan tested a handful
of DI resin system configurations in this video,
where we found the best solution
for handling some of these challenges
that you'll absolutely want to see,
it could change the way you make water from now on.