Report on Advanced Water Filtration and Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Co-Benefits of PFAS Remediation

A recent study published in ACS ES&T Water reveals that technologies designed to remove Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from drinking water yield significant co-benefits. These systems also filter other harmful materials, including carcinogenic disinfection byproducts, thereby advancing multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes these findings through the lens of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), highlighting the multifaceted value of investing in advanced water treatment infrastructure.

Advancing SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The widespread contamination of drinking water by PFAS presents a major obstacle to achieving SDG 6, which aims to ensure access to safe water for all. The pervasiveness of these “forever chemicals” is a critical challenge to public water systems.

• A 2023 U.S. Geological Survey study estimated that 45% of U.S. tap water may contain at least one PFAS chemical.
• The report examines three types of widespread and well-documented filtration technologies that have proven effective in removing a large number of contaminants, including PFAS.
• The implementation of these technologies is a direct action towards Target 6.1: achieving universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

Enhancing SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The primary benefit of PFAS removal is the mitigation of severe health risks, a core objective of SDG 3. PFAS exposure is linked to numerous adverse health outcomes, including various cancers, hormonal disorders, and developmental delays. The study provides quantitative evidence of ancillary health benefits, finding that the installation of PFAS filtration systems led to a substantial reduction in other harmful disinfection byproducts.

1. The average level of trihalomethanes, which can increase cancer risk, dropped by 42%.
2. The average level of haloacetic acids, some of which are suspected carcinogens, dropped by 50%.

These reductions support Target 3.9, which aims to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

Addressing SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The research highlights a significant disparity in the deployment of advanced water treatment, posing a challenge to SDG 10. A clear technological gap exists between water systems based on the population they serve, perpetuating inequality in access to safe drinking water.

• Only 7% of water systems serving fewer than 500 customers utilize some form of advanced water filtration.
• In contrast, nearly 30% of water systems serving more than 100,000 people have such technology in place.

This divide disproportionately affects rural and under-resourced populations. Governmental initiatives aimed at providing tools, funding, and technical assistance to smaller utilities are essential to address this imbalance and ensure equitable progress.

Policy Landscape and Implications for SDG 11: Sustainable Communities

The development of sustainable and resilient communities (SDG 11) relies on safe and robust infrastructure, including public water systems. The regulatory environment surrounding PFAS is currently in flux, with recent rules establishing legal limits being reconsidered due to concerns from water utilities about the high cost of implementation. This financial burden is a critical barrier to upgrading infrastructure. Understanding the full spectrum of benefits, including the removal of non-PFAS contaminants, is crucial for policymakers to conduct accurate cost-benefit analyses and justify the necessary investments for creating safe and sustainable human settlements.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through its discussion on water contamination, public health, and regulatory actions.

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article directly connects to this goal by focusing on the health risks associated with “forever chemicals” (PFAS) and other contaminants in drinking water. It explicitly mentions links to “various cancers, hormonal disorders, and developmental delays” and notes that new filtration technologies can reduce the risk of bladder cancer.
   • SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the central SDG of the article. The entire text revolves around the challenge of ensuring safe drinking water by removing hazardous chemicals like PFAS. It discusses water quality, filtration technologies, legal limits for contaminants, and the need for water utilities to upgrade their systems.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights inequalities in access to safe water. It points out a significant disparity, stating that “Just 7 percent of water systems serving fewer than 500 customers had some kind of advanced water filtration system, as opposed to nearly 30 percent of water systems serving more than 100,000 people,” and notes these smaller systems often serve “rural and under-resourced populations.”
   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The presence of PFAS, which “do not degrade in the environment,” is a direct consequence of industrial production patterns. The article touches on this by mentioning the EPA’s role in “holding polluters accountable,” which relates to managing chemical waste and its lifecycle.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets are relevant:

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article directly supports this target by discussing how advanced filtration can prevent illnesses. The EPA’s estimate that the new rules “could prevent 2,600 additional deaths and more than 7,000 illnesses from bladder cancer each year” is a clear link to this target.
   • Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The article’s focus on establishing “legal limits of PFAS in drinking water” and the challenges utilities face in meeting these standards are central to achieving safe drinking water. The mention of rising consumer bills (“some consumers are seeing their bills skyrocket”) and the disparity between small and large water systems addresses the “equitable and affordable” aspects of this target.
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The core topic of removing PFAS and disinfection byproducts from the water supply is a direct action towards improving water quality by reducing chemical pollution. The study’s findings on the effectiveness of filtration technologies exemplify efforts to achieve this target.
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The article’s data showing that small, rural, and under-resourced communities have significantly less access to advanced water filtration technology highlights an existing inequality. The EPA’s “PFAS OUT” initiative, designed to provide “tools, funding, and technical assistance” to these utilities, is a measure aimed at reducing this gap and promoting more equitable access to a fundamental resource.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions and implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators for measuring progress:

   • Concentration of pollutants in drinking water: This is a direct indicator for Target 6.3. The article provides specific data from the study: “The level of trihalomethanes dropped by an average of 42 percent, while haloacetic acid levels dropped by an average of 50 percent” after filtration systems were installed. Measuring the levels of PFAS and other chemicals against the “first-ever legal limits” set by the EPA is another key indicator.
   • Reduction in water-related deaths and illnesses: This indicator measures progress towards Target 3.9. The article provides a specific metric from an EPA estimate: the potential prevention of “2,600 additional deaths and more than 7,000 illnesses from bladder cancer each year.”
   • Proportion of the population with access to safely managed drinking water: This is an indicator for Target 6.1. The article implies a baseline with the US Geological Survey estimate that “45 percent of tap water in the US could contain at least one PFAS chemical.” A reduction in this percentage would indicate progress.
   • Disparity in access to water treatment technology: This indicator is relevant to Target 10.2. The article provides a clear metric of inequality: “Just 7 percent of water systems serving fewer than 500 customers had some kind of advanced water filtration system, as opposed to nearly 30 percent of water systems serving more than 100,000 people.” Progress could be measured by the reduction of this gap over time, supported by initiatives like the EPA’s “PFAS OUT” program.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: wired.com