In about half the home VOC/Chemical tests for air quality we have run, paint is either shown to be a primary or a secondary source of chemical air pollution. This surprises many people because they have paint stored in the attached garage or basement and the lids are on tight.

The fact is that the VOCs will escape the can, even if the lid is fastened tightly. As long as the paint is stored within the footprint of the home, even in an attached garage or basement, the VOCs will find their way into the breathable space within the living area of the home. When we are asked how to deal with this, our first recommendation is to remove all paint cans and ventilate the home.

However, we do get some “reluctant” folks who feel they can’t remove all the paint cans. In that case, here is a work-around that could be used: When finished with the paint, put the lid on tightly and then turn the can upside down on a several layers of newspaper. The newspaper is necessary just in case the lid leaks. Then, after several days, turn the can right side up and store it in a cool place. By doing this, the paint will seal the lid. Use this simple procedure to store paint and not only will it not give off VOCs, it will last for years.

In the somewhat tumultuous history of the science of indoor air quality, homeowners, business owners and the general public have been beset by alarms one after the next. There always seems to be a crisis du jour. References to poor Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) date back to ancient Greece and Rome but the problem probably existed back to the time of the cavemen; however, the recorded history for this period is sparse.

Of late, IAQ issues have included, among other things, formaldehyde in carpets and foam insulation, asbestos, air "ionization," ozone insertion, radon, mold, soil vapor and now volatile organic compounds in general. Some of these issues are real, some imagined, some handled scientifically and expeditiously, some exaggerated and most exploited in some way or another by hysteria-mongering charlatans. The objective of this discourse is to shed some light on the issue of VOCs from a chemist's perspective to help dispel some of the myths surrounding them and to help IAQ investigators tackle this dimension of their work.

Even the term "volatile organic compounds" sounds rather daunting to an individual without a degree in chemistry or a lot of experience because measurement and interpretation of VOCs is wholly different from nearly all other IAQ measurements. Radon, CO2, humidity, etc. are just what they say they are and no interpretation is required.

Not so with VOCs. What is measured are chemical compounds with strange sounding names like geraniol, citronellyl formate and limonene, which must be translated into Japanese Beetle attractant, rose scent and citrus, respectively. Even after the translation has been made, interpretation is required to answer questions such as: "What is a normal level for this compound?" "Is this level hazardous?" and "Do I need to do something to manage it and, if so, what?" As complex as this issue appears, it can be simplified by understanding a few basic concepts.

There are many "hand-held" on site monitors that can be useful on occasion, but they have limited utility, especially in addressing odor problems. The most effective way to assess VOCs is to take a sample and send it to a laboratory for analysis, usually performed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). This technique has the advantage of separating the VOCs from each other and then using the MS fingerprints (cracking patterns) of the compounds to determine their identity. While GC-MS is the principal workhorse for this analysis, Fourier transform-infrared (FT-IR) Spectrometry has also been used effectively to augment the GC-MS analysis because of its wide dynamic range and its effectiveness at identifying simple organics that do not have a singular, well-defined mass spectral fingerprint.

The first step in understanding VOCs is to get a feel for total VOCs, or TVOCs, the sum of all VOCs present. TVOC should not to be confused with the simple sum of all identified compounds in the chromatogram. Many sources of VOCs produce a vast array of low-level overlapping peaks that, when viewed in a chromatogram, appear to be a "hump" as shown on the right hand side of Figure 1. The most common sources of these "humps" include fuels (gasoline, kerosene, or diesel), paints and varnishes, natural gas, low-quality solvents, decaying organic matter and rotting flesh. These "humps" can make up a very significant fraction of the TVOC load and should not be ignored.

Setting aside the impact of individual compounds for now, the TVOC load can have significant deleterious effects on building occupants. Currently, there is no specific standard for the permissible exposure level for TVOC. Even though research and opinions have been published for more than 30 years, questions regarding safe levels or whether or not methane, ethane and similar low molecular weight compounds should be included still remain and are currently being debated.

However, it is still possible to establish reasonable, workable limits for TVOCs. The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, USGBC) has set the standard for Green Buildings at less than 500 nanograms per liter. The European Community has established a TVOC limit of 300 ng/L with no single compound contributing more than 10 percent of the total. One U.S. chemical company uses the standard of less than 500 ng/L as their target for nonmanufacturing areas, 500.- 1,000 ng/L as their "action level" and greater than 1,000 ng/L as their "immediate action level." The literature generally seems to agree that less than 300 ng/L represents an "acceptable" TVOC level and that greater than 3,000 ng/L represents a "hazardous" TVOC level; however, few seem to want to address the hazards involved with levels between 300 and 3000 ng/L.

The recognized symptoms above 3,000 ng/L generally include drowsiness, eye and respiratory irritation, general malaise, headache, nausea and exacerbation of symptoms of respiratory ailments. Some data suggest that high TVOC levels amplify the hazardous effects of specific harmful VOCs. In addition, there is some empirical information from industrial hygienists who perform medically driven environmental investigations that indicates typically acceptable levels are too high by a factor of two or more for chemically sensitive individuals.

Table 1 was developed using available literature, data from numerous companies and industrial hygienists active in the IAQ field, together with empirical data from many personal investigations. It provides a workable definition of the limits and effects of C3-C15 TVOC concentrations and has proven to be a good predictor of the level of expected symptoms of non-chemically sensitive people. The next step in understanding VOCs is to consider collections of compounds that give indications of the five most common VOC problems: gasoline, paint, odorants, personal care and lifestyle.

Gasoline has six marker compounds associated with it. They are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and the three xylene isomers. The source of gasoline can be ambient air (especially in urban environments), but it is generally the office occupants themselves who supply the contamination. Remember that for every gallon of gas pumped into an automobile, one gallon of air saturated with gasoline vapor is dumped into the lap of the person filling the tank. This person then goes to the office and off gasses the rest of the day. The gasoline levels in homes are generally higher than in offices because, in addition to the personal off gassing, the most common source of gasoline vapors is the collection of gas cans, mowers, trimmers, etc. in the attached garage.

Paints are very complex and can have several different markers, but they typically include methylcyclohexane, substituted cyclics, butylcellosolve, substituted alcohols, unsaturated C9-C12 hydrocarbons and the straight-chain hydrocarbons nonane (C9) through dodecane (C12). Paint VOCs can linger at significant levels for as long as 18months after application; however, even though the paint may be fully cured, leaking paint cans often contribute to the VOC load for years.

Odorants are chemicals that are supposed to smell good. They are in air fresheners, potpourri, scented oils, perfumes/colognes and nearly all cleaning and personal care products. In a typical office, especially in an office or home where an IAQ problem exists that the occupants think they can eliminate by covering it up, odorants can make up a significant fraction of the TVOC load. These odorants include many aldehydes, alcohols, ketones, pinenes and complex esters.

Personal care products are the primary sources of acetone, typically associated with nail care (nail polish remover is nearly 100 percent acetone). Other compounds associated with personal care include the C2-C5 acetates (nail care), isopropanol and ethanol (cosmetics and hair spray) and menthol, camphor, and methylsalicylate (topical ointments).

Lifestyle chemicals are many and varied, but the three primary compounds are ethanol from antiseptic wipes (although the occasional leaking bottle of scotch cannot be ruled out), tetrachloroethylene or PCE from garments that have been dry cleaned and 1,4-dichlorobenzene from mothballs.

What has been presented thus far serves as a primer of sorts but covers only 25-50 percent of the problems that will be encountered in the real world. The rest are far more complex and require close cooperation between the laboratory and the investigator. For example, consider a four-story apartment building constructed in the early 1920s in which sulfur dioxide is indicated in the analysis. When it was built, the apartment was equipped with centrally pressurized refrigerant, which was piped to each apartment to cool the refrigerator. Guess what was used as the refrigerant.

After electric refrigerators became commonplace, the compressor and piping were sealed off and walled over. Corrosion due to a water intrusion event formed a pinhole in one of the pressurized pipes, releasing sulfur dioxide into the building. Or consider the asthmatic child of a wealthy couple. The plasticizer used in the hordes of plastic toys with which the child was playing was causing his asthma attacks.

When assessing VOC contamination, the general tendency is to run a USEPA TO-15 or TO-17 analysis; however, experience has shown that this type of analysis will solve fewer than 10 percent of the VOC problems typically encountered because fewer than 75 compounds are typically reported (at many laboratories, fewer than 50 compounds) and they are mostly substituted benzenes and halogenates. By far, the better analysis is a full spectrum analysis.

Thermal desorption tubes generally provide the best collection medium for this purpose because of their small size, long shelf life, broad versatility and low acquisition, storage and shipping costs. In addition, they can be applied to other analytical techniques such as Fourier Transform InfraRed (FT-IR.) Recent advances in FT-IR technology coupled with the fact that VOCs from 40 L of air can be trapped on a tube and desorbed into a 1 L IR cell work together to expand the effective range of FT-IR down to the 1-10 ppb range. But by far the most attractive attribute of thermal desorption tubes is their ability to quantitatively trap compounds that are generally considered to be semivolatiles.

These include the diesel/kerosene markers (naphthalene and the methylnaphthalene isomers), medicinal compounds (camphene, menthol and methylsalicylate), phenolics (including the cresols) and many characteristic odors and scents including compounds like citronellyl acetate (rose), eugenol (clove), cedrol (cedar or sandalwood), geosmin (fungal and musk), á- Cedrene (exotic woods) and skatole (fecal material).

NIOSH 2549 is an excellent method for thermal desorption tube analysis. A great deal of credit goes to NIOSH for writing a performance-based method rather than a detailed cookbook that is outdated before it is promulgated. In addition to the compounds they report quantitatively, most laboratories that use this method to perform a full spectrum analysis will determine many of the compounds they report semi-quantitatively – i.e., the concentration is estimated rather than based on a calibration curve. Usually, though, this level of accuracy is sufficient to determine the source(s) of VOC contamination.

At this point, a discussion is warranted as to how the identification of compounds reported semi-quantitatively is made. There is a distinct difference between running a computer-generated library search to identify compounds in a full spectrum analysis and having the analysis performed by a competent chemist well trained in mass spectral interpretation and who has available a large in-house collection of reference compounds.

Any laboratory can produce a report based on a computer generated library search in under a minute. Virtually no operator training is required. However, what appears to be an effective application of computer technology frequently results in incorrect compound identification.  Misidentification causes several problems.

When a hazardous compound is erroneously cited, it can mandate unnecessary and expensive follow-up testing, cause grave concern when it is unwarranted and embarrass the investigator. Equally problematic is failing to correctly identify critical compounds. Misidentification arises primarily because every computer generated library search routine selects a single best match – oftentimes, the second best match, which may be the correct compound, is only minutely lower in search quality.

Also, different search criteria result in different best matches, or the computer may select an outlandish compound totally inconsistent with the retention time, fail to account for distorted mass spectra or fail to differentiate overlapping compounds. This uncertainty is seldom, if ever, transmitted to the submitter as part of the analytical report. As a result, the submitter has no idea whatsoever of the validity of the results.

A good laboratory report should give the name of the compound, synonyms, the concentration determined in weight/volume as well as concentration in parts per billion (ppb,) comments by the analyst (including uncertainty in identification), the molecular weight of the compound and the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number. The CAS number is critical when searching the Web for information on a specific compound. For example, 4-methyl-2- pentanone can be called MIBK, or methyl isobutyl ketone, but it has only one CAS number, 108-10-1. Then, the only problem in searching the Web will be sorting through a few old hockey win/loss records. In addition, the laboratory report should include hydrocarbons, even if their exact structure cannot be determined, because their presence constitutes a hydrocarbon fingerprint that is very useful in chemical profile interpretation and comparisons among samples.

With all the intricacies of sampling (media, sampling parameters), laboratory analysis (type of instrument, choices of analytical parameters), translation (translating chemical compounds into substances, materials and products) and chemical profile interpretation (figuring out what the analysis means in practical terms), it is critical that a laboratory be selected that is capable of working with the investigator in all phases of the project, including everything from planning the very start of the project through the chemical profile interpretation. Choose your laboratory carefully!

 

VOCs: The Sheep in Wolf's Clothing

By Prism Analytical Technologies, Inc.

 

Reprinted with permission of Indoor Environment Communications.

Excerpted from Volume 8, Issue 10 • August 2007

Copyright © 2007. All Rights Reserved

One thing I hear commonly when I speak to people, especially in Sherwood Park and Edmonton, is that the city water supply we are blessed with is among the, if not THE finest in the world.  With that nugget filed away, why would anyone bother to treat city water?  Turns out, there are several answers:

1) Cost – take a look inside your dishwasher, look at the end of all the faucets and the bottom of the sinks in your home.  That is just the visible damage that needs to be maintained, repaired and replaced (especially when you have to sell your home!)  The same thing is happening inside your water using appliances (this is the number ONE cause of failures in hot water tanks!)  Then there's efficiency – if your heating elements are all scaled up, you are immediately spending 16-20% or more than what you should be to heat your home's water supply. 

A properly installed conditioner will conservatively save you a MINIMUM of $600 a year in home operating expenses.  Hard water takes a minimum of DOUBLE the amount of soaps and detergents for every single load – another money waster.  Then factor in longer life for your fixtures, sinks, drains and hot water heaters on top of that and you could be at $1000 a year or more in savings, not to mention better quality of life with improved laundry, longer lasting clothes, softer skin and shinier hair…..

2) Chemicals – What is shocking to most people is that we don't have LAWS about the water – just GUIDELINES.  These guidelines are based on tests for about 100 different chemicals that scientists at some point decided were important enough to check for and monitor in the water we bathe in, shower in, do our laundry in and cook with and even drink.  Where this gets concerning is that there are over 1,000 new chemical compounds created and used every year – over 10,000 new chemicals have been put into use as drugs, additives, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers – not even counting the exhausts from factories and smog created in cities that gets into all the rain water falling to the ground. 

So if there aren't guidelines or tests for these chemicals, how do we know what levels may be in our water?  Simply – WE DON'T.  Just because we haven't bothered testing for chemicals, doesn't mean they aren't present.  A recent Edmonton study decided to check for just 10 chemicals the scientist involved thought MAY be present.  Turns out over 41 were found in that one study – none of which were in the reports or the test data supplied from the city.  The only way to be sure the water we use in our daily lives is safe is to take control of it when it enters our homes.  Period.

Think about all the uses for water OTHER than in the house.  The city has to supply water to fight fires, make concrete and a whole host of industrial applications.  Water is used to wash the streets, water lawns (including parks and schools) and add it up – less than 1% is actually delivered to homes.  It would be WAY too expensive to treat all the city water to remove chemicals and damaging hardness minerals – we'd all end up with a water bill that's higher than our mortgages!

The only thing consumers can do is take control of their water supply.  Systems are designed to remove the minerals that damage our homes and lead to inefficiency, to remove chemicals from the water we bathe and shower in as well as further treat the water we actually consume.  A quick, 15 minute appointment with a water professional can get you all the info you need on safe, efficient water for your family – and even show you government programs to cover some or all of the costs.  For more details, please contact Douglas Environmental at 780-410-0837.

Not long ago, a client of ours had a problem with their distiller.  It was a brand that no longer is made, sold to the client that's no longer around.  The property owner was referred to us by existing clients and we sat down to discuss whether reverse osmosis (RO) or a new distiller made more sense for their family.  After making the decision and installing a system that has provided excellent water for over two years now, the owner asked me about their whole home setup.

The existing system was a two stage system:

1) Chlorine was injected into the well water as it entered the home, mixing and maintaining contact for a minimum of 10 minutes before going on to the next stage. 

2) The chlorine oxidizes out organic materials, iron and sulphur, creating a sediment which is filtered out, along with the chlorine. 

In theory, this yields clean, clear water to the home.  Where it can be a pain is the handling of messy, smelly chlorine, and if issues arise where the contact time isn't long enough in the mixing tank, incomplete oxidation allows contaminants through, and the sediment filtration on this system wasn't optimal – meaning little black bits were getting through and clogging up toilets and faucets.  Another issue is periodic "bleed through" of chlorine – leaving water throughout the home that smells like a swimming pool.  This can happen if contaminant loading drops down, carbon filtration degrades, or if flow rates are periodically too fast for the system to keep up.  All can happen from time to time and when this happens, it is not a pleasant experience for home owners.

The idea of working with, storing, handling and using chlorine isn't a particularly nice one either.  It is smelly, potentially dangerous if spilled or left un-sealed, and by adding it in to water that contains organic materials, "disinfection byproducts" and Trihalomethanes (THM's) are formed.  These are known to be cancer causing – and if the solution is still letting contaminants through, is it worth the risk?

Instead, we designed a system for this client that works on a similar principle, but with different materials.  Instead of chlorine, we recommended injecting hydrogen peroxide.  Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is chemically identical to water (H2O) except it has one extra oxygen atom.  That atom very actively wants to react and break free from the hydrogen peroxide and aggressively seeks out iron, manganese, sulphur and organic materials, reacting and neutralizing them – converting them into an easily-filterable form.

This is a LOT nicer material to work with, is relatively inexpensive and actually works BETTER than chlorine, without the nasty side effects.  It also doesn't need to be removed from the water, instead, hydrogen peroxide is metered to allow for reaction with the contaminants and still leave a trace, or a "residual" left in the water.  The water is then run through a very fine sediment filter, and delivered to the home.  Periodic and very easy checking with a simple test strip is peformed periodically by the homeowner to ensure that there is a trace of hydrogen peroxide left in the water.  As long as that's there, we know the complete reaction with the contaminants has occurred.

All this happens with a very safe alternative to nasty chlorine, without the creation of THMs and other cancerous agents, and all done without adding odour to the water.

Working with a professional water treatment organization gives you access to some better ideas, often more-simple and more-effective than "what has always been done" in the industry.  In this case, switching to hydrogen peroxide has nothing but up-side for anyone in need of this type of water treatment.

A recent article published by the US Government indicates that a full 20% of residential wells contain contaminants that are above the levels set as “safe” by health officials.  Contaminants like arsenic, chromium and even lead are showing up at levels that could prove harmful to anyone drinking them.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard someone tell me their family has lived on the land for generations and “the water was good enough for my grandpa, so it’s good enough for me,” well, I’d probably have a couple bucks by now anyway.  The fact is, 90% of the contaminants we have to worry about didn’t even exist when our grandparents lived on the land.  We have no control, and in most cases, no idea what is happening upstream in the underground aquifers that water wells draw from.

I’m working with a client that is building a brand new home on “family” land – land that’s been owned for years in Sturgeon County.  After careful consideration of the options, it was decided to dig a well instead of hauling water with to a cistern, the way most new acreage builders like to do.  In this case, some unexpected contaminants showed up and they definitely require treatment.

Probably the most-concerning was lead.  It was 20% higher than the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) as set by Health Canada.  Fluoride was also too high, testing at 5x more concentration than the new regulations allow for city water.  Both of these are effectively treated, assuming optimal conditions, by either reverse osmosis, or distillation.

With these serious issues, this is no time to fool around with cheapo-Joe’s RO – when health is on the line, the obvious choice is a system that carries the Water Quality Association’s “Gold Seal” – stating that the purifier has been sent to a lab, its performance analyzed, and GUARANTEED reduction of these specific contaminants is provided by the manufacturer.

We only provide equipment that is certified by the WQA to achieve a minimum reduction, then we take the specs, compare to the water analysis, and ensure that we are in the optimal zone for making good drinking water.  This goes well-beyond just plugging in the equipment and hoping for the best.  Reverse osmosis requires sufficient pressure to meet the Gold Seal specifications – and no well water pressure system I’ve ever seen is sufficient in this regard.  Consult an expert in your area to ensure the system is within specifications for pressure, pH, TDS and contaminant reduction.  Anything else is taking a gamble with your health!

Sediment & Scale Water Damage

The municipality of Tucson, Arizona just made an announcement regarding their city water supply. The water the municipality treats and delivers to the residents is filtered and chlorinated, much like it is in most cities. One thing Tucson has been doing been doing until now, is something Edmonton had done until the year 2000 – softening the water for the town’s supply.

The Arizona news story talked about the town having to do cutbacks and not being able to supply conditioned water to the residents. They stated, “…it’s the city’s job to make sure the water isn’t going to get you sick, as far water quality and hardness, it’s gonna fall on the homeowner.” Until now, they had been removing hardness minerals which have been known to cause build-up and clog water pipes. Soon their levels will rise in the water and so could the damage to homeowner’s plumbing, hot water tanks and fixtures.

Not having softened water, as many Edmonton area homeowners found out when Epcor stopped softening their water, leads to increased soap use, and requires higher temperatures to do an adequate job with laundry. Softened water saves between 50 and 75% of detergent usage and allows for laundry to be done with cold water – not only saving money on soaps and energy consumption, but actually doing a better job of laundry. As noted in a 2009 Battelle study,

The study found that tankless water heaters completely failed to function because of scale plugging in the downstream plumbing after only 1.6 years of equivalent hot water use on 26 gpg hard water. Softened water saves 34% of costs compared to operating on 20 gpg and saves 47% compared to operation on 30 gpg hard water.

Scale Acts an Insulator

Further, an independent report by the Water Quality Research Council showed a 30% (THIRTY PERCENT!) savings on energy usage for gas-fired hot water tanks, simply by using conditioned water. Most people don’t think about it, but the hot water heater is the second-highest user of energy in a home. Since we just got word last week that energy prices are going up yet again next month, it makes sense to keep as much as possible from going up the chimney!

At least Tucson residents were publicly advised about this change and adding residential treatment like water conditioning and reverse osmosis was recommended by the municipality. I don’t know anyone in the Edmonton area that remembers hearing such recommendations here – just those that started noticing a scale build up on their faucets, having to replace hot water heaters more frequently, higher energy bills (take a look if you still have your old bills!) and grubbier looking laundry.

An average family of 4 saves $1200 a year using conditioned water – even more if they install a drinking water system and stop buying expensive bottled waters.  For a link to the article referenced and a short video on the news story, please click HERE.

This is an update to the family I mentioned June 26th, “Well Water vs Cistern Water” – they decided to go ahead with the treatment system and take their cistern offline.

Douglas Environmental closed off their cistern, just before their next scheduled water delivery (instant savings of $60!) and tied their well into the plumbing servicing the entire home. The water from this well wasn’t particularly nice to start with – it has very hard (17 grains or almost 300 mg/L hardness) and had problems with iron, sulfur (or sulphur, if you prefer) and some tannins and organics that would be causing staining.

This called for two separate units to treat the water for the whole home, and a reverse osmosis (RO) system to supply pure, fresh drinking water to the kitchen faucet, a faucet in the basement and to the fridge & icemaker for chilled water and perfect ice. We ended up softening and sediment filtering the water in the first stage of treatment – for this, we used the “Puratech” system from Hague Quality Water followed in series by a special carbon filter unit that would handle the tannins, organics and H2S gas (sulfur – causing the “rotten egg odour” many well water families are familiar with.)

The family had a sink in the basement where they plan on making wine. It was determined the best place to install the RO system was under the basement sink, feeding a faucet right there for purified water, then run a line upstairs to feed the kitchen’s RO faucet and the fridge. Normally, we install the RO completely out of the way, in the utility room where the pressure tank and any well water treatment equipment would be, but logistically, this time installing under the sink seemed to make the most sense.

After the transition was complete, the home actually had better water from the system than was being supplied to any city water home. Their well supplies LOTS of clean, fresh water now – and the organic staining most cistern owners deal with is a thing of the past. Other than the power to run their well pump, something still required with a cistern, the water is “free” to use now.

Unlike a cistern where rationing drives people crazy, not to mention the $120+ per month for water hauling, there is very little for this family to do or think about when it comes to their water. Monthly, they are to check salt levels on the conditioner and annually, there is a maintenance required on the drinking water system – something recommended even if they were to stay with the cistern, since that water is immediately stale and contaminated with dust, dirt, organics and often even with frogs and mice. (Yuck!)

Now the water is fresh and free-flowing. The way it should be!

I was asked to come out and check a rural home’s water system this weekend. The owners have been trying to keep it going since they purchased their acreage, but have dealt with staining and bacterial build-up in their plumbing, as well as a rotten-egg odour in the home.

They had someone come to replace the “Birm” media in their iron filter in 2008 and have since had their water tested by the County. Even after their air injector, mixing tank and birm filter, they were still getting 0.74 parts per million (ppm) of iron through their plumbing – more than double the concentration where staining starts to be visible on fixtures.

I tested their raw well water as well as their water at the tap. I confirmed the system was only removing about 1/2 the iron coming from their well. The main problem is that there was H2S (hydrogen sulfide) gas present in the water. Some of it was being oxidized by their air injection system, but birm is specifically not suitable for treating water with H2S present. This is either a case of some overzealous salesman extolling the virtues of his magical “chemical free” iron filter, or perhaps a case where the water chemistry had changed and the birm system simply wasn’t capable of keeping up.

Its unfortunate the technician that replaced the birm media in their filter seems to have neglected to test the water. The owners complained of rotten egg odour to him and that is an immediate reason to check for H2S gas. If it is present, there is absolutely no point in replacing the birm media – it simply won’t work on that water. Period. Instead, the technician charged them around $700 for a service call and left a system behind that had no chance of working for his customer.

Perhaps ignorance, perhaps arrogance – but there is no excuse for what happened there. If you have water problems, especially with well water, you need to ensure you are dealing with a professional, not just some slick sales guy that may not be properly trained on how to treat different kinds of problem water. I left some recommendations for new equipment using a media called manganese greensand that will work and keep him going for the life of the property. Hopefully they take me up on the offer to help – spending more money trying to get the wrong system going is throwing good money after bad!

Having represented the Hague Quality Water brand for years and having had nothing but success deploying their solutions, it seems odd that I would be suggesting a GE product for a client we’re working with for an acreage near Sherwood Park.

The clients live in a high-end acreage in a beautiful subdivision in the Edmonton area.  They just purchased the home and are finishing the basement, as well as performing some other renovations.  With the steam shower they are installing and the high-end fixtures, it only makes sense to have high-performance water feeding their home’s plumbing system.

Initially, due to the high flow rates, we were looking at either a dual residential softener system or a single commercial unit, depending upon the client’s needs.  The WaterMax system has the highest flow rate of any residential water conditioner or water softener at 13 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) but that still may not handle the high-end, multiple nozzle steam shower with body sprayers the client is getting installed.  In order to effectively soften and remove the chemicals and chlorine, two units need to be installed in parallel, effectively doubling the maximum flow to over 20 GPM.

The down side to this is cost.  Clearly, for more performance, most people expect to pay more money.  In this case, instead of a traditional water conditioner plus reverse osmosis drinking water system, we explored a whole-home reverse osmosis system by GE – a new system called “PureOFlow.”  This cabinet-style system will soften all the water and remove chlorine and chemicals for the whole home – without the need for additional plumbing to run lines to separate faucets for a traditional reverse osmosis drinking water system.

With this configuration, all the home’s water would be purified, leaving all existing taps delivering bottled-water (or better!) quality throughout the home.  This is accomplished without the use of salt, a necessary addition to a traditional softener or water conditioning system.  In terms of price, it actually cost about $1000 less to go this route, and as a bonus, the repressurization system included with this PureOFlow system will deliver up to 22 GPM of water flow to the home – enough to run the steam shower unit without any additional hardware.

It turns out once again that it pays to work with a water professional that keeps up on technology and offers multiple solutions – not trying to force the same answer to solve every problem.