A recent UMass Amherst study highlights the inconsistency of at-home water testing kits, emphasizing the need for better regulation and more reliable options for concerned homeowners.
A new study from the University of Massachusetts Amherst is raising questions about the reliability of at-home water testing kits. The research indicates significant variability in the ability of these kits to detect potential contaminants in drinking water.
“People might be concerned about their drinking water, whether they’ve heard things in the news, or they notice it tastes different, or the color is different,” senior author Emily Kumpel, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at UMass Amherst, said in a news release.
The study, published in the Journal of Water and Health, highlights a critical gap in water quality assurance. While public utilities provide water quality reports, these reports often exclude private well owners and fail to address issues originating from home plumbing systems.
“Some of these issues, like brown water, can come from home plumbing, and that’s something that the utility doesn’t always know,” Kumpel added. “A test to understand more about your home plumbing can be very helpful.”
However, selecting an effective test kit can be challenging. The study identified hundreds of kits available, with their availability fluctuating daily within this unregulated market.
The research team focused on eight kits measuring levels of iron, copper, manganese and fluoride, discovering substantial variability in their accuracy.
The study categorizes the kits into two types: single-parameter tests, which measure one element, and multi-parameter tests, which claim to measure multiple elements simultaneously.
According to Kumpel, single-parameter tests yielded more consistent results compared to their multi-parameter counterparts. For instance, while none of the multiparameter tests could accurately detect low levels of iron, three out of four single-parameter tests did, albeit with some over- and underestimation.
The inconsistency in results extends to testing guidelines provided by the kits. Some kits classified certain levels of iron as “OK,” while others considered the same levels “high,” highlighting a lack of standardized metrics.
“This really points to the fact that this is an unregulated space,” added Kumpel. “This shouldn’t just be on the homeowner. These tests should be better checked for how well they actually perform, particularly under real-world conditions.”
Kumpel also recommended strategic timing for sample collection. Testing the first draw from a tap (water that has sat in pipes overnight) can indicate metal contamination from plumbing, while allowing water to run for a few minutes before sampling can better represent water straight from the well or distribution system.
“There’s widespread mistrust in tap water across the U.S.,” Kumpel notes. “Having access to be able to test your own water and confirm that it is okay … is a really good thing. I think this could be a positive tool if we can get these to work [reliably] and get people to really understand more about their water.”
For those seeking reliable test results, Kumpel recommends certified labs listed on state departments of environmental protection or public health websites.
Homeowners with wells, aging plumbing or recent exposure to natural disasters should consider professional testing, especially in the wake of events like flooding or wildfires.
The study highlights the need for regulatory oversight in the at-home water testing market to ensure public health and safety.