Walking Forum

Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: wildcaper on 12:20:41, 21/09/19

Title: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: wildcaper on 12:20:41, 21/09/19
I've been wondering how much to worry about fertiliser contamination of wild water. There are a lot of good light weight ways to treat water nowadays, I have a brown bag filter to get rid of most of the junk, and arguably that with boiling or water purification tablets is about as good as it easily gets...


...and if one is high up, I see relatively little to worry about beyond that, but coastal areas, or anywhere low compared to surrounding farm land, one is surely going to be subject to quite a lot of fertiliser chemicals if nothing else, and any streams and rivers will always be lower than a lot of surrounding land so it's pretty much always a problem. I've seen rivers with horrendous algae and other growth problems and I understand this to be down to fertiliser run off from the land and it really brings it home how real the problem is.


The only way I understand we can really deal with such chemicals is activated carbon, but it appears to me from observing the how fast activated carbon removes chemicals that activated carbon filters which all operate by water flowing over/through the activated carbon, will inevitably only ever reduce contaminants.


Unless one passes water through such filters many times therefore, or sits water in such a filter, are they going to have more than a marginal effect? Will they have a sufficient effect for our purposes of filtering water from rivers and streams surrounded by intensive farming?


These are questions I'm not sure about and I would be interested to hear from anyone who has ideas on the subject.


I understand of course that we are inevitably afflicted with some chemical intake, even drinking safe tap water there will be some, but we all accept tap water as acceptable, but what is acceptable in the wild and how do we get there?


M.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: ninthace on 14:14:23, 21/09/19
Welcome to the forum from sunny Devon.
Multiple questions.  Filters that rely on pores will remove everything they are meant to remove but will eventually clog.  They are designed to remove particulates down to and including bacteria.  Active carbon filters are designed to adsorb chemical contaminants and are amazingly effective in doing so, but have a life after which they have to be replaced or regenerated.  They will remove chemical contaminants to safe levels if they are used in accordance with the instructions.
Fertilisers contain nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and sometimes other nutrients, like zinc, needed for healthy plant growth.  None of these are toxic in trace amounts.  However, non organic fertilisers are often made by recycling from waste water treatment plants and have been found to contain traces of heavy metals which can be toxic.  Commercial water filters for walkers should remove these too, by adsorption or ion exchange.
The real threat to human health that you did not raise is pesticide and herbicide residues.  These can also be present in run off and contain known carcinogens.  Fortunately, a well designed active carbon filter should remove these too.


The moral is a commercial filter should give water safe to drink.  Its life will depend on how grossly contaminated the water is.  Fortunately there is a way to avoid all these problems - drink beer!
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: wildcaper on 17:44:34, 21/09/19
Haha! Of course! Beer! Is there nothing beer can't do for us?  :)


Thanks for your reply, you're right of course, pesticides are no doubt more of an issue than fertilisers, I guess my mind was focused by my experience of algae clogged rivers... from which I have never derived drinking water I must say!


It's interesting you say a (well designed) active carbon filter should remove all these, though obviously I understood active carbon was the way to go for chemical contaminants I couldn't find a way to feel confident they would really do a particularly good job.


I did an experiment with my Brita filter a couple of years ago, I used a nutrient meter (which gives you an EC / PPM based on the waters conductivity) to see what readings the tap water had, and the water after filtration. I remember it reduced the "nutrients" by an amount (I don't remember how much now, I should rerun the experiment really). Running the filtered water through multiple times reduced the EC/PPM further each time by reducing amounts. Obviously Brita filters are designed to improve already safe tap water, not make dangerous farm polluted water safe so it doesn't matter (to me anyway) if it does a somewhat incomplete job.


Perhaps I should collect some probably fairly well polluted water and measure it before and after some commercial travel filters. I'm a bit worried that an EC measure is a rather blunt instrument for this but one does not have a home laboratory sadly!
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: richardh1905 on 17:55:26, 21/09/19
I wouldn't drink water that has run off from arable land, simple as that.


PS - welcome to the forum :)
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: richardh1905 on 17:56:12, 21/09/19
..and +1 for drinking beer!
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Ridge on 17:59:00, 21/09/19
You 2 are talking more knowledgeably than I can but, what I will add is, I have drunk water from my travel tap which you would not want to get any where near even if it was filtered for particles and boiled.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Ridge on 17:59:36, 21/09/19
..and +1 for drinking beer!
It's 6.00pm, what a good idea.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: ninthace on 18:15:50, 21/09/19
Wildcaper.  There is a world of difference in design and purpose between a Brita Filter, designed to clean up tap water, and a hiker's drinking water filter design to turn a duck pond into potable water!  The former is basically a plastic box with tiny carbon granules and the latter is a piece of hitec with multiple stages.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: alan de enfield on 12:29:20, 22/09/19
I use a Sawyer water filter in conjunction with a Platypus carbon filter.
The Carbon-Filter (the white cylinder) is put 'in line' after the Sawyer.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SY0vzcGp/IMG-20170707-144946.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/SY0vzcGp)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bsrmNCP2/Reduced-Size-Kit.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/bsrmNCP2)

https://www.platy.com/platypus/accessories/gravityworks-carbon-element/06700.html?

Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:08:41, 23/09/19
I always thought that the real issue with 'fertiliser contamination' was ecological rather than risk to public health. It certainly is not in the farmers interest to use such excessive levels of fertilizer that enormously high nitrate levels will leave the poor benighted walker rolling in agony on the pathside. I wonder how these rather extreme fears emerge, are they time-warped out of propaganda, issued by radical conservationists.

My concern is the dumping of scrap and other farm waste into marlpits and in my area the smaller pools, of the sort left by the last ice age. These are often very beautiful, though insignificant when compared with the popular features sought by walkers and ecologically extremely valuable.

Of course these locations are far off the righteous way, the high concentration of algae may well be due to the nitrogenous breakdown of human waste in more popular area, feeding ducks the casual discards of a slobby nation.

Were the landowner more prepared to trust, perhaps more responsible suggestions might be coming forth from less radical commentaries based of factual observations of the state of our countryside.

On the subject of chemicals, that is one of the reason for wider field margins along water courses. No one suggests that the public access to field margins should be allowed to increase 'continuity of way' and therefore improve the access network.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: andyapanel on 13:00:12, 23/09/19
My degree is Biology and I am very nervous about drinking polluted water; the nitrates can react with stomach acid and trigger gut cancer. Heaven knows how many Parasites in the water there are, too (Parasitology was my main interest)


I finally invested in a top notch water filter (https://www.ultralightoutdoorgear.co.uk/equipment-c3/water-treatment-c24/water-filters-c165/sawyer-international-select-s3-foam-water-filter-purifier-p9352)


Walking in France, where shops are like hens' teeth, is now more fun as I don't need to navigate from shop to shop to buy water and can just walk where I planned.


I used it on Offa's Dyke LDP, filling up in pools, cattle troughs and streams.
Additionally, I don't need to carry as much water as I used to, so I have shaved a kilo off there, too.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: ninthace on 13:26:44, 23/09/19
Andy - both of my degrees are in Chemistry.  Normally nitrates are removed by using a specific ion exchange resin which exchanges nitrate for chloride ion.  I cannot find a claim that the S3 filter has one and there is no mention of nitrate removal on the link you published.  Does it remove excess nitrate?
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: fernman on 13:58:44, 26/09/19
I'm well aware that a downside of the Steripen I use is that while it renders organisms harmless, and its 40-micron pre-filter keeps out particulates, it can't do anything with pollutants etc.
However I use it up in the hills where the bad things are unlikely, and I've yet to have any ill effects.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:29:09, 09/10/19
As a passing thought on this topic, the OP's title for his inquiry seems seems to over-stress harmful contaminants in naturally occurring water on fertilizer applications. It is not in the farmers interest to overuse nitrogenous fertilizer, it is expensive, but highly soluble. The traditional method of providing the necessary plant food is farmyard manure and leguminous crops as introduced by the Norfolk 5 and 7 course rotations in the 19th century.

Plant available nitrogen encourages photosynthesis, which is nature's way of locking up atmospheric carbon. It requires energy to convert atmospheric nitrogen into plant food N, so provided the energy used is renewable surely this is one of the practices that should be encouraged and not on the list off knee jerk conservation criticisms that may be hindering a sensible approach to climate change.

Andy - both of my degrees are in Chemistry.  Normally nitrates are removed by using a specific ion exchange resin which exchanges nitrate for chloride ion.  I cannot find a claim that the S3 filter has one and there is no mention of nitrate removal on the link you published.  Does it remove excess nitrate?
My chemistry may be a bit rusty, so any more informed info would be welcome. I should think that a high concentration of sheep penning close to a watercourse as risky to raising nitrogen levels. I worked with a shepherd, who grew superb tomatoes in great abundance, his secret ingredient were the sheep daggings in his water butt, which he watered the plants in their fruiting stage.

A parting remark; as walkers I think there is plenty to challenge the occupiers of our countryside about, but I think we should do it accurately, intelligently and try to compile arguments with good sense.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: gunwharfman on 13:00:28, 09/10/19
I have no knowledge of this sort of thing at all, always a worry though. I've drunk unfiltered water high up on the Tour du Mont Blanc, gallons of the stuff, it was so hot. I was caught out once in the Pyrenees, ran out of water but saw a trickle coming out of a mossy area from a rock so drank that. And more than once in the UK I've drunk from the feed pipes into cattle troughs. I do have a water filter, just a plastic tube of whatever it is inside? I just put the tube end into a cup of water and I suck the water through it. So far so good.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: jimbob on 13:11:46, 09/10/19
Well it seems that Google is stuffed full of studies from universities all over the world regarding the effect of fertilisers. Not too many glowing reports. However they do differentiate between chemical fertiliser and organic fertiliser. Quite interesting is the basic dilemma that the use of chemical fertilisers whilst destroying our planet at point of production seem to solve starvation fir those in need of cheap food even though it may cause problems a few generations ahead. Also seem to eventually damage the soil organisms that are unnafected by organic. (I remember being sent out with a sack and tongs to collect sheep droppings for dad's watering tub), bleeding organic, destroyed my appetite.

By the way it is a fact that too much nitrogen run off into water sources kills fish and other water creatures, not read enough yet to show if it affects humans in any way immediately, long term they seem to be certain that it has potential to cause bad problems.

Like I say loads of long term studies out there in the world of independent research.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: ninthace on 14:03:38, 09/10/19
Let us get the chemistry right.  Nitrogen is a gas and is not an issue.  The nitrogenous compounds in fertiliser that are seen as possible pollutants are ammonium ions (NH4(+)) and nitrate ions (NO3(-)).  Plants use these compounds in a variety of ways but the main ones are the synthesis of proteins, DNA and, to answer BWW's question, chlorophyll in its various forms (all chlorophyll molecules 4 nitrogen atoms at the core).
The processes inside a plant take place in aqueous solution and there is no difference, as far is the plant is concerned, between an ammonium ion or nitrate ion from an organic or inorganic source.
There are pros and cons for both artificial or organic fertilisers and both can be pollutants if misused.  Artificial fertilisers are concentrated and easier to handle.  The chemical content is known so it easier to regulate the dosage and to apply them topically.  That said, mishandling can lead to pollution and, by and large, they do very little for the structure of the soil or the bugs living in the soil.
Taking sheep poo as an example of an organically sourced fertiliser.  It contains a lot of other things that are good for the soil such as insoluble matter and bugs to improve the soil.  On the downside. the ammonium and nitrate content is an unknown quantity and the fertiliser is often applied far more haphazardly leading to the risk of pollution of water courses
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: jimbob on 15:22:51, 09/10/19
Let us get the chemistry right.
O0 O0
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: fernman on 17:09:37, 09/10/19
Well I'm sure I must have drank sheep poo in solution at some time over the years!
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: ninthace on 17:16:55, 09/10/19
Well I'm sure I must have drank sheep poo in solution at some time over the years!
It is tastier with added liver flukes!
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:27:54, 09/10/19
O0 O0
I agree  O0 O0 ::)
I thank Ninethace for that information, interesting about the 4 molecules of N as my training was probably directed more at encouraging transpiration and absorption of CO2.

One of the areas greatest at risk from bag muck overuse is on headlands, which coincide often with Field Margins. Areas in receipt of grant money, which have not had their full value as explored as part of the access/leisure network, in consideration for the part the taxpayer plays.
These areas are part of conservation initiatives, yet it seems that minimal cultivations/management are encouraged. Probably part of the thinking from the set aside policies. Yet I recently walked in an area managed by the Woodland Trust, where they had used wild flower seed mixtures on boundaries alongside tracks and paddock boundaries. This had resulted in an astonishing increase of butterfly numbers and varieties in that area. Resulting a very pleasing walking experience.

One of the reasons for Field Margins is to create barrier both distance and ecological between the crop and a watercourse. Soil moisture moves through the soil structure, both downwards, side ways and run off on the surface. A good soil structure holds more moisture and an adventitious root system bulks up the topsoil, tap roots penetrate the subsoil so a mixed balance on the field margin takes out the available nitrogen being leached out of the soil, put legumes into the mixture it become self sustaining, however excess available nitrogen encourages more green growth so there is a self regulating barrier to a water course.

Farmers should monitor nitrogen levels from the field drainage systems, I did but that was nearly 40 years ago.
If we share in conservation costs, then we should be able to share in the amenities created.
A friends wife died from eating wild watercress contaminated with liver fluke, it was the secondary host the water snail that caused her infection, she was only a young mother at the time married to a farmer. Farmers have suffered from many the contaminants, they learn from these tragedies, because they are closer to those causes when they are unknown. Many of the advances in agricultural practice, fed a nation when it was besieged by German U boats.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 18:51:38, 09/10/19
Does excess nitrogen in the water courses kill the fish directly, or indirectly by encouraging toxic algal blooms due to the excess nutrients available?
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: jimbob on 19:39:57, 09/10/19
Does excess nitrogen in the water courses kill the fish directly, or indirectly by encouraging toxic algal blooms due to the excess nutrients available?
It appears the growth of algae in general depletes the water of oxygen, some algae can also be toxic but it seems it is the general lack of oxygen than causes the problem

Gawd I am setting myself up for a load of reading tonight.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: ninthace on 19:41:59, 09/10/19
Does excess nitrogen in the water courses kill the fish directly, or indirectly by encouraging toxic algal blooms due to the excess nutrients available?
Normally by eutrophication
 http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/media/nitrates-and-their-effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 20:32:06, 09/10/19
Normally by eutrophication
 http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/media/nitrates-and-their-effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/ (http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/media/nitrates-and-their-effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/)
Thanks
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: scottk on 21:18:56, 09/10/19
Where I live near Aberdeen is a Nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ). As such, there are guidelines for farmers and there has been a big reduction in nitrates entering the waterways. One of the big issues was that the streams and rivers run into an SSSI at the Ythan Estuary. Apparently, if they spread muck in growth times, there is little or no nitrate leaching. I have no knowledge of this apart from reading articles in the farming section of the papers!
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 21:50:47, 09/10/19
Where I live near Aberdeen...


I also live not far from Aberdeen
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: scottk on 23:24:02, 09/10/19
I’m in Cruden Bay and work in town. Handy for beach walking, golf and not far from Ballater-it’s pretty quick now with the new road.
Of course, Bennachie is great for training walks.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 18:35:33, 10/10/19
I’m in Alford, so Bennachie is quite close by. I have walked he beach at Cruden Bay. Injury has kept me away from serious walking for a while.
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:03:37, 11/10/19
Normally by eutrophication
 http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/media/nitrates-and-their-effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/ (http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/media/nitrates-and-their-effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/)
Good information, thanks for the link. I once walked several miles of river, in waders, after a slurry tank collapse on a farm, the effects of sudden and catastrophic anoxia is devastating.

As a walker I am interested in destinations and features that add to quality of way. River and stream banks raise quality of way. Alongside the River Severn, near I where live the Severn Way runs along side the river, in Shropshire this is a surprising coincidence for a way that is marketed as the longest riverside walk. Much of the way is through permanent pasture so field margins are not visible though there are regulations to be followed. These regulations are more obvious in arable land, where the field margins become visible.

19th and 20th century progress has put long and dangerous barriers across our countryside, namely railways and roads and infrastructure  has been provided for the occupiers of our countryside to access across these barriers, but they rarely get dual use as part of our countryside amenity. We rightly get concerned about pollution, but surely the investment to rectify this has other uses.
The OP is concerned that he might be poisoned by high nitrates in naturally occurring water in our countryside, what information has caused this scare and is it real. Nitrogenous fertilizers are expensive and developments in application has become far more accurate and environmental procedures have taken land out of arable production to safeguard our watercourses.

Progress
Yet we still walk a network that is based on 'Shortcuts of yesteryear and old ways to work, that are not suited for the 21st century usage', or words to that effect as quoted by a landowner, who considers himself an authority on our rights of way.


Safety in the countryside? Who sidetracks who? In all the issues that the media puts before us?
Title: Re: Drinking water fertiliser contamination
Post by: Boudicca3 on 10:09:20, 13/10/19
On hiking the Pennine Way I used my Sawyer Walter filter to get water out of mountain streams. No problem until I came to the River Tees and its tributaries- very polluted and for that I used my filter, plus a carbon Britva filter and chlorine tables. Had no ill effect. However, when I was crossing the Cheviots I ran out of water and there was no nearby water source for 24 hours so I had to get water from a bog. I filtered the water twice, used a chlorine tablet and everything seemed fine. 24 hours later I was projectile vomiting green bile - pharmacist told me it was most likely the water source though the vomiting probably saved my life.


My 2pence worth is thus: if you pass a farm and are even tempted to filter water that may be contaminated, simply don’t. Sawyer and Britva filters are intended to kill 99% of virus’s - NOT contaminants. In any case, if you are near a farm, do what I did between Malham and Keld, simply knock on a door and ask for tap water. I never had a farmer refuse.