A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that the majority of at-home testing kits leave homeowners with inconclusive results.
Because there are no regulations on these kits, everything from the testing instructions, the result interpretation directions, and the results themselves are inconsistent.
The researchers are calling on policymakers to regulate at-home water testing kits to give consumers peace of mind when it comes to their drinking water.
Many consumers purchase at-home water testing kits for some peace of mind that their drinking water is free and clear of dangerous chemicals or pollutants. However, not all water testing kits are created equal.
Researchers from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst put these kits to the test and determined that an unregulated market has led many at-home water testing kits to be ineffective and inaccurate.
“People might be concerned about their drinking water, whether they’ve heard things in the news, or they notice it tastes different, or the color is different,” researcher Emily Kumpel said in a news release.
“[These tests] might be a good first cut on things, but it’s not necessarily telling you all the information you need.”
The study
The researchers explained that there are hundreds of at-home water testing kits available for consumers.
Additionally, that availability can change day-to-day and in different markets. This study went into the mind of a consumer, with the researchers going through the process of searching, purchasing, and completing the test. Kits were chosen based on top search results from Amazon, similar to how a consumer might select them.
The goal was to test for levels of iron, copper, manganese, and fluoride. The kits included in the study measured either a single element or multiple elements at once: four multiparameter kits, four iron-only kits, two copper-only kits, and one manganese-only kit.
The team tested kit performance in three water types—deionized, tap, and river water—and compared results from labs to those received from the at-home tests.
The results
Ultimately, the results were mixed. However, the researchers did draw some major conclusions. Here’s what they found:
Stick to single-parameter kits: The testing kits that were most successful were the ones that stuck to one testing parameter. Kits that advertised testing for multiple elements weren’t as accurate as the lab results.
Take the results with a grain of salt: Many at-home kits tout their ability to detect high levels of metals in water, which can be harmful to consumers’ health. The researchers learned that many kits showed levels of iron specifically that were much lower than the numbers that came up on the lab readings.
Inconsistencies were consistent: The tests involved in the study had different instructions for completing the water assessment, as well as differences in how consumers should evaluate the results. This can make it difficult to accurately perform the test or make sense of the results.
“It really points to the fact that this is an unregulated space,” Kumpel said. “This shouldn’t just be on the homeowner. These tests should be better checked for how well they actually perform, particularly under real-world conditions.”
Getting consistent
Kumpel encourages consumers to look at websites for public health offices, state departments, or environmental health offices, as they typically have listings of labs that will accept tests of residential tap water.
Moving forward, she hopes that steps are taken to regulate these at-home testing kits so consumers can have peace of mind when they go to take a drink, take a shower, fill their pools, etc.
“There’s widespread mistrust in tap water across the U.S.,” Kumpel said. “Having access to be able to test your own water and confirm that it is okay – which is the most common result that people would get by testing their water – is a really good thing. I think this could be a positive tool if we can get these to work [reliably] and get people to really understand more about their water.”