1. Understand How a Legacy Soil Fumigant Impurity Entered Groundwater
Between the 1950s and 1980s, soil fumigants containing 1,2,3-trichloropropane, a chlorinated solvent, were applied in agricultural areas near Salt Lake County. Over decades, this contaminant leached deep into the groundwater that now supplies public water systems, including the Murray City Water System. This slow migration means TCP may persist in groundwater long after its historic use ceased.
2. Recognize Why 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Resists Air Stripping
1,2,3-TCP is not effectively removed by air stripping because it has low volatility compared to other volatile organic compounds. This resistance to volatilization means typical aeration tactics often used to address some water contaminants are ineffective here. For residential treatment, this implies that technologies relying on air stripping may not be a suitable choice for addressing TCP presence.
3. Consider How Sampling Depth and Water Sources Affect Expected 1,2,3-TCP Levels
TCP concentrations vary depending on well depth and source water type. Groundwater supplies, like those in the Murray City Water System serving Salt Lake households, can have different TCP levels than surface waters. Public system records from 2013 to 2015 show no TCP detected above 0.03 micrograms per liter (parts per billion) in 35 sampling events, indicating low TCP presence at the system level. Individual well testing is necessary to determine household-specific concentrations.
4. Record Your Water Source and Previous Test Data Before Seeking Treatment Advice
Before exploring treatment choices, gather detailed information including your home's water source, any recent laboratory test results for 1,2,3-trichloropropane or related chlorinated solvents, and the sample collection method. These details help in assessing whether a technical treatment approach is warranted and which may be most effective.
5. Identify Symptoms Indicative of the Chlorinated Solvent Versus Other Water Issues
Household water problems such as unusual taste, staining, or odor do not specifically indicate 1,2,3-TCP contamination. Since TCP typically does not affect water taste or smell at low concentrations, symptoms suggesting chlorinated solvent presence are rare. Awareness of these distinctions is crucial to avoid misattributing common water quality concerns to 1,2,3-trichloropropane.
6. Differentiate TCP Concerns from Hardness and Other Common Water Challenges
1,2,3-TCP is chemically distinct from hardness minerals and organic contaminants. While hardness causes scale and soap inefficiency, TCP relates to solvent contamination with different treatment requirements. Avoid confusing aesthetic or mineral-related water problems with chlorinated solvent issues, as the technical approaches vary significantly.
Closing Recommendation
The decisive step is to order a laboratory test specifically for 1,2,3-trichloropropane concentration in your home's water. A quantifiable result compared against the reporting level of 0.03 micrograms per liter (ppb) will clarify the extent of the chlorinated solvent in your supply. With this data, you can confidently evaluate treatment methods, including the option of the C-Series 1,2,3-TCP Filter, a solution designed to be configured in residences addressing this particular contaminant challenge.
Where this information comes from
Source: EPA SDWIS public water system record. Sampled 2015-03-27. These figures describe the public water system's record, not the plumbing inside any individual building.
On record: EPA UCMR3 monitoring (2013-2015) for Murray City Water System (UTAH18024), UT: 35 results across 1 listed contaminants, 0 detections above the reporting level; nothing detected above the method reporting level