Do home tests are worth it? A new study shows that quality can vary considerably

For the prudent owner – or simply curious -, a test kit on home water may seem reassuring. But there are high levels of variability between the capacity of test kits to detect potential contaminants in water, a new study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst published in the Journal of water and health found it.

“People could be concerned about their drinking water, whether they have heard things in the news, or that they notice that he has a different taste, or that the color is different,” said Emily Kumpel, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Umass Amherst and the main study of the new newspaper.

Although water quality reports are widely available from public services, they only concern people on the city’s water, not in well water. In addition, sometimes the water source is not the problem. “Some of these problems, such as Brown Water, can come from domestic plumbing, and this is something that the utility does not always know,” said Kumpel. “A test to better know more about the plumbing of your home can be very useful.”

However, finding a kit that really works is easier to say than to do. The researchers found that there were hundreds of kits on the market, whose availability can change daily – and it is an unregulated area. The researchers selected eight kits that evaluated the levels of iron, copper, manganese and fluoride. Overall, they found great variability between the kits – some worked well, while others did not do so.

Despite the mixed results, there have been dishes to remember general of research. First, the type of kit is important, and there are essentially two types available: one that measures for a particular element, and one that can measure supposedly measure a dozen parameters at a time, explains Kumpel.

Generally, unique parameter tests have had more regular results than multiple multi-parameter results, compared to the results measured in the laboratory. None of the multi-prone tests detected low iron levels, while three of the four unique tests have done so (although the results on or often underestimate the presence of iron).

Many tests announce that they can detect high iron levels (20–100 mg / L). While multi-scarameter tests have worked better when it is high iron levels compared to low levels, most tests have always underestimated the actual concentration.

Kumpel advises that kit users should interpret the results with a good dose of skepticism, especially if you test to see if there are metal levels with metals. “(These tests) can be a good first cut on things, but that does not necessarily tell you all the information you need,” she said.

Kumpel says that unique tests often have a pre -treatment step for water samples that improves the accuracy of the results. When you test the iron, the modification of the pH of the water allows the easier detection to detect the metal by the kits.

The study also revealed that test instructions and results interpretation guidelines were incoherent. For example, for iron, a kit informed users that 0 to 0.3 parts per million (ppm) was “OK” and 0.5 to 5 ppm was “high”, while other test kits said that 0 ppm was “ideal”.

“It really shows the fact that this is an unregulated space,” explains Kumpel. “This should not simply be on the owner. These tests should be better verified for the way they actually work, especially in real conditions.

A word of advice that Kumpel suggests that you will probably not see in the instructions of the kit is to think when testing. Metals such as copper or lead (not assessed in this study) probably come from home pipes, not from the upstream distribution system.

“You want to do what is called a first draw sample, where you get the very first water coming out of your system that is sitting there during the night.” If the metal lesing pipes in the water, this first print will have the highest concentration, giving you the best opportunity to detect it.

“If you want to see what is going on directly from your well or directly from the distribution system, then you want to do what is called a flush, that is to say that you let the water run a few minutes before taking your water sample.”

For consumers looking for a water test and are looking for something more reliable than the home testing option, Kumpel says that environmental protection departments or public health websites list locally or national certified laboratories.

Consumers who should consider testing their water are well owned, especially after floods; People who live in older houses who have not had the plumbing updated or replaced in the past two decades; Or after a disaster such as forest fires or floods.

“There is a widespread mistrust in tap water across the United States,” said Kumpel. “Having access to be able to test your own water and confirm that it is good – what is the most common result that people would get by testing their water – is a very good thing. I think it could be a positive tool if we can make it work (reliably) and bring people to really understand their water.”