Does distilling remove the EVIL POISON CHLORAMINE?

Thanks for the great article  - here we go again (does it or doesn't it?) because there's also data that shows distillation does not remove chloramine.  The University of Nebraska site states that distilling removes chloramines, but doesn't provide any evidence.  I've read lots of data stating 'distilling does' and 'distilling doesn't'...but I've never found solid proof either way.  Hopefully in the next hour or two I'll come up with something conclusive.  If not, I'll just post what information I have and continue the search (updating this post if I can ever find "the actual truth").

But first, just how bad IS chloramine?  BAD!!!  Some of the data I'm presenting comes from companies that sell water filtration systems that remove chloramine -or say they do.  Of course, this means there's a possibility the data they present is not 100% factual because they have a financial interest in convincing you in 'whatever way' that will 'pad their pocket' :::sigh:::)  Of course again, having a financial interest in something doesn't mean they're lying...there are many people that start selling health-related products because they have learned & want to share the truth.  As always when researching something, be sure to have at least THREE sources that agree before even contemplating whether it's something you want to believe.

All bold-face (first article)  is from the original article - underlining/color/italics is mine

First, from here: http://www.consciouslivingsystems.com/chloramines

	What Are Chloramines?

 

While the effect on public health by not disinfecting drinking water supplies would be far worse than the alternative, advising the public that either chlorination or chloramination are completely non-toxic methods is ill-advised. We now know that chlorination has contributed greatly to heart disease, cancer, and other serious health issues in our human population. There is no reason to believe that chloramination will prove to be less troublesome. In fact, just the opposite is likely.

Consumers interested in home appliances capable of solving this problem will be disappointed to learn that most popular treatment technologies are completely unable to handle chloramines without modification. These include most cartridge-based systems using ceramic or carbon media, reverse-osmosis systems, and distillers.

The only media that is proven effective at removing chloramine is a specially designed carbon known as Catalytic Activated Carbon. Whole house systems require substantial amounts of this media. A flow of 2 gallons per minute requires a cubic foot of media so the average home will require 3 to 4 cubic feet in a backwashing filter to reduce the average amount of chloramine from 2 ppm to less than 0.1 ppm. In a drinking water appliance like most countertop or undercounter units, an entire 10" cartridge filled with the media is required on flow rates of 1/4 gpm.

********************************************************

From here: http://www.watertechonline.com/article.asp?IndexID=6637285

While chloramine does reduce the TTHMs and HAAs chlorine forms, it creates far more toxic byproducts including, but not limited to, hydrazine, NDMA, iodoacids and DXAA. While these byproducts are formed in lower concentrations, they are more toxic in these concentrations than the TTHMs and HAAs. These new byproducts have been found to be genotoxic, cytotoxic and carcinogenic.

Chloramine is an inferior biocide — 2,000 times less effective in killing E. coli and 10,000 times less effective in killing rotoviruses than chlorine. WHO, Germany, France and even a county in Florida have warned against the use of chloramine as it exposes us to bacteria-based waterborne disease.

 

********************************************************

If it is true that distillers do NOT remove chloramine, then it is true that distilling the water actually CONDENSES the chloramine and there would be substantially more 'parts per million' in the final product than the original :(

********************************************************

From here: http://www.watertechonline.com/article.asp?IndexID=5220514  

Company Profile

For almost 30 years, Water Technology® Magazine has provided water treatment professionals with knowledge that helps them manage and grow their businesses effectively. It delivers a mix of technology and product news, sales and marketing expertise, business management tips, and interviews with industry leaders. It is the residential and commercial water-treatment publication with the largest circulation overall, and it has the strongest reach to dealers, retailers and distributors who sell point-of-use (POU) equipment to end users.  [WOOHOO! - they don't sell water purification systems, and if their stated intent is true, they are doing their best to find and share the truth]

 

Chloramine removal needs more study
From Volume 22, Issue 5 - May 1999

Halogenated organics are formed when chlorine is added to a water supply containing certain organics. Called trihalo methanes (THM) these reaction products are suspected carcinogens and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has imposed maximum allowable limits in municipal supplies.

To reduce the potential for the formation of THMs, many US municipal supplies are converting their chlorine (Cl2) disinfection method to chloramine addition.

Chloramines are chemical complexes formed from the reaction between ammonia and chlorine. They are more attractive to some municipal water suppliers because unlike chlorine, chloramines do not combine with organics in water to form THMs.

Chloramines can exist in three forms: monochloramine (NH2Cl); dichloramine (NHCl2) and nitrogen trichloride (NCl3)

The effects of chloramines on water chemistry and the equipment/methods used to treat chloraminated streams should be understood as dealers will encounter this constituent with more frequency.

Many similarities exist between free chlorine and chloramine's effects on equipment and methods of treatment. Yet there exists enough differences to warrant approaching applications from a knowledgeable perspective.

Unfortunately, the newness of this aspect of water treatment does not allow all questions to be fully addressed. Indeed, if any conclusion can be drawn it is that too little has been researched on how to remove chloramines once they are introduced in water.

Chloramines are biocides. Like Cl2 they are oxidants and kill bacteria by penetrating their cell walls and disrupting their metabolism. However, chloramines are much slower to react. They remain as residual in water being consumed as they come in contact with bacteria or break down over time as a matter of course.

As with chlorine, municipalities aim for 1 to 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) chloramine residual in the potable water supply.

Organic chloramines cannot be distinguished from the other forms of chloramines with standard methods of chloramine analysis. Chloramines are not highly disassociated (in other words only minimally ionic). That fact and their low molecular weight make them difficult to remove by reverse osmosis (RO).

The monochloramine form is the best biocide and is the dominant specie at pH 7 and greater. Since slightly alkaline waters are less corrosive, municipalities in many cases maintain the monochloramine form and reduce corrosion potential at the same time. At these alkaline pH levels, chlorine exists as the hypochlorite ion (OCl), which has a higher oxidative potential than hypochlorous acid (HOCl), but is 80 to 100 times less effective as a disinfectant.

Why remove chloramines?

Like any other molecule, chloramines contribute to the overall total dissolved solids content of the water and like chlorine, are selectively reactive and may have deleterious effects on downstream processes. In equilibrium with chloramines are trace amounts of ammonia and/or hypochlorite ions. Their (NH3 and HOCl) presence also must be recognized when one is designing an ultrapure treatment system to remove chloramines.

Distillation or evaporation does not remove chloramines effectively. During distillation the chloramines would be volatilized and carried over to the product water (distillate). This is especially important to keep in mind in the pharmaceutical, power and laboratory markets due to their heavy use of distillation technology. The effects of reactive chlorinated materials on their products are of special concern. [UHHH, pardon me, but do you think maybe, that we could worry more about the effects on human health than 'the pharmaceutical, power and labortaory markets' & their products?  :::eyeroll:::

Chloramine removal by RO has not been well documented. Preliminary indications are that cellulose acetate (CA) membranes will not reject significant percentages of the monochloramine form. Much like chlorine, it will pass through to the permeate side and thus work as a sanitizer on downstream portions of the system. Dichloramine and trichloramine forms would be expected to have greater rejection potential due to their larger mass and higher ionic character, however, precise data is not available.

Even more limited is experience on PA-type RO membranes. Historically very sensitive to oxidants such as chlorine, PA membrane use has been limited to water free of any such disinfectants. However, chloramines have a significantly lower oxidative potential than the hypochlorite ion or hypochlorous acid. PA-type tolerance to water containing chloramines would be expected to be much greater compared to chlorine. This would certainly be even more true for newer generation thin film composite (TFC) membranes purported to have greater chlorine tolerance.

At this time no PA-type system should be exposed to >0.2 parts per million (ppm) chloramines. However, the effects of chloramines on PA membrane are of interest because they may have potential as a sanitizing agent once the development of a moderately oxidant tolerant PA membrane has been realized.

Due to tighter pore structure, TFC membranes would be expected to reject a higher percentage of chloramines than cellulosic membranes. Indeed, one report of up 90 percent rejection of the monochloramine form has been heard.

Ion exchange or activated carbon?

For the moment it appears that RO's utility in removing chloramines is in removing water impurities that would otherwise be competitors or provide interference in downstream ion exchange or activated carbon technologies. RO's primary utility is removing chloramine breakdown products as a result of carbon treatment.

Ion exchange resin has a certain affinity for cations and anions. The more highly ionized species, such as sulphates and chlorides, are preferentially adsorbed to the resin over less strongly charged molecules, such as chloramines. With RO as pretreatment, competition for exchange sites would be practically absent.

Some chloramines can be removed by fresh strong base ion exchange resin, but this is not a reliable mode of treatment. Another portion of chloramines may decompose via oxidation in an ion exchange system to the chloride ion as happens with chlorine. Again, this is not a reliable reaction. Feedwater quality and resin characteristics are likely to provide unique performance for each application.

Some degradation via oxidation of the cation resin could also be expected. Though not nearly as severe as with free chlorine, life of the resin would be reduced a slight degree. While ion exchange affects some chloramine removal, it has limitations

Activated carbon is proven to reduce chloramine presence from 1 to 2 ppm to less than 0.1 ppm (a US Pharmacopia (USP) Water for Injection (WFI) requirement). The mode is similar to free aqueous chlorine destruction; however, with chloramines byproducts of ammonia, chloride and nitrogen gas are found. Activated carbon does not adsorb Cl2 or NH2Cl like organics.

For USP WFI requirements, ammonia nitrogen must also be less than 0.1 ppm in the product water. Activated carbon will not remove NH3. At pH 7.5 or lower, both cellulosic and noncellulosic RO membranes would reduce the NH3 and Cl concentrations to less than 0.1 ppm from activated carbon feedwaters up to 2 ppm NH2Cl.

Clinoptilolite, a natural-occurring ammonia selective zeolite, was not found to be effective in reducing NH3 levels to USP criteria. Strong base cation would probably be effective in removing NH3, but only RO and distillation are acceptable as the final form of treatment in the production of WFI grade water.

Activated carbon is a viable method to reduce chloramines. The literature notes some important facts in designing carbon beds for chloramine removal:

1. Chloramine reacts more rapidly with finer granular activated carbon (GAC) particle sizes.

2. Two gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot with a bed depth of 4 feet and an empty bed contact time of 15 minutes provides more than one year run time with 1 to 2 ppm chloramine feed with effluent of less than 0.1 ppm.

3. The removal efficiency of GAC is much greater for free chlorine than for chloramines. Therefore, if youe can first oxidize chloramines to free chlorine and N2, the GAC bed can be sized smaller because GAC can handle Cl2 much quicker.

Activated carbon followed by RO (or ion exchange and RO, depending on purity required) appears to be the best non-chemical-intensive method to treat chloramines.

Gerald J. Gach is a former employee in research and development for Osmonics, Inc., Minnetonka, MN.

Looking for more information on this topic? Please visit www.waternet.com and click on "Articles." Use the following suggested keywords in an article search: activated carbon, chloramines and reverse osmosis.

***********************************************

I think this is a very good article: http://www.cleanairpurewater.com/pure_water.html  Particularly this: What you can do is to remove contaminants from your water and you can determine how extensive you’d like to be in that effort.  The approach I suggest (www.cleanairpurewater.com) is to learn what’s in your water, set your goals, and then identify the technologies that will remove the contaminants that enable you to meet your goals.  However, now that our guts & gut flora are SO compromised and out of balance, I will always caution about 'rock minerals' in our water.  Plants eat rocks/minerals and convert them to minerals suitable for humans.  'Need minerals? please eat plants, not rocks.

****************************

What we know for SURE?   NO CHLORAMINE!!!!!

Uny

Tweet