Fleck 1,2,3-TCP Filter

Buy Now

View full details

This week, homeowners in El Paso County face a decision on how to handle 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) when existing equipment no longer meets their water treatment needs.

Why 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Resists Air Stripping and What That Means for Treatment Choice

A common belief is that air stripping can effectively remove many volatile contaminants from water. However, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, a chlorinated solvent once widely used as a soil fumigant, resists air stripping due to its chemical properties. This means that methods relying on volatilization are not efficient for treating TCP. Instead, effective treatment depends on technologies that adsorb or chemically bind the compound.

Granular Activated Carbon Contact Time: Why Bed Depth Matters More for TCP Than for Taste

Many assume granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration addresses all water taste and odor concerns equally. While shallow carbon beds can improve taste and reduce chlorine, the chlorinated solvent 1,2,3-TCP requires deeper beds for sufficient contact time. The longer water remains in contact with the carbon, the more effective the adsorption of TCP, which is less easily removed than tastes or odors. Bed depth is critical in designing a treatment that can keep pace with household water usage when TCP is present.

How Public-System Records Differ From Private-Well Testing in What They Establish

Homeowners often believe that water system records directly reflect their home's water quality. Government monitoring records from the Colorado Springs Utilities public water system, which serves El Paso County, show no detections of 1,2,3-TCP above 0.03 micrograms per liter (parts per billion) during federal sampling from 2013 to 2015. This sampling covers surface water sources supplying over 460,000 people through 151,608 connections. However, these records represent system-wide averages and do not test individual residences. Private well water quality can differ and requires separate testing to establish household levels.

Which Fixtures, Appliances or Processes Are Affected First and Why

TCP presence in water affects some household fixtures and appliances more noticeably. Water used for drinking and cooking is of primary concern since it directly contacts residents. Appliances with water storage or recirculation, such as ice makers or coffee machines, may retain contaminants longer if TCP levels are elevated. Bathrooms and laundry systems typically see less impact related to TCP, as skin contact is less relevant and the compound’s presence is mostly an ingestion concern.

The Household or Facility Symptoms That Do and Do Not Point to This Problem

Many people look for taste or odor as signs of water quality issues. TCP is generally odorless and tasteless at the concentrations detected in El Paso County’s public water. Stains or discoloration are not associated with this chlorinated solvent. Therefore, symptoms such as unusual taste or appearance are not reliable indicators of 1,2,3-trichloropropane presence. If a household’s treatment equipment struggles to keep up with TCP, it may be due to insufficient adsorption capacity rather than any apparent water changes.

In summary, El Paso residents managing 1,2,3-TCP face challenges that require understanding the limits of air stripping and the importance of carbon bed depth. While public water system records show no health-based violations for this chlorinated solvent, individual household testing is necessary for precise water quality information. Treatment options like the Fleck 1,2,3-TCP Filter ship ready to configure and provide targeted adsorption technology to support households where existing equipment falls short.

Where this information comes from

Source: EPA SDWIS public water system record. Sampled 2014-05-12. These figures describe the public water system's record, not the plumbing inside any individual building.

On record: EPA UCMR3 monitoring (2013-2015) for Colorado Springs Utilities (CO0121150), CO: 18 results across 1 listed contaminants, 0 detections above the reporting level; nothing detected above the method reporting level