Public thresholds for chlorinous flavors in U.S. tap water

Considering this rapid growth in the purchasing of bottled water and home filtration devices, utilities are increasingly concerned about consumer dissatisfaction with tap water quality. This project aimed to characterize public perceptions of chlorinous flavors in drinking water, and how these impac...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Water Science & Technology 2004-01, Vol.49 (9), p.335-340
Main Authors: Mackey, E D, Baribeau, H, Crozes, G F, Suffet, I H, Piriou, P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bottled water
Chlorine
Community Participation
Consumer Behavior
Decision Making
Drinking water
Flavors
Humans
Methods
Odorants - analysis
Sensitivity
Sensitivity and Specificity
Taste tests
Taste Threshold
Thresholds
United States
Water consumption
Water purification
Water Purification - methods
Water quality
Water Supply - standards
Water users
Water utilities
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Considering this rapid growth in the purchasing of bottled water and home filtration devices, utilities are increasingly concerned about consumer dissatisfaction with tap water quality. This project aimed to characterize public perceptions of chlorinous flavors in drinking water, and how these impact customers' choices with respect to consumption of tap water alternatives. On-site taste tests at seven water utilities with 30 to 40 panelists at each site, were conducted using a forced-choice triangle test method (ASTM method E679-91) to measure public sensitivity to chlorine and chloramine in drinking water. The chlor(am)ine concentration increased from set to set. The best-estimate sensitivity limit for each panelist was the geometric mean of that concentration at which the last miss occurred and the next (adjacent) higher concentration. The measured sensitivity limit of average American populations to free chlorine (159 persons tested) and chloramine (93 persons tested) in tap water were 0.8 and 3.7 mg/L Cl2, respectively. These thresholds are much higher than those previously reported in the literature using trained FPA panels. No significant differences were observed between tap water users and users of tap water alternatives or between the various markets tested with respect to average sensitivity, though individual sensitivity varied widely.
ISSN:0273-1223
1996-9732
DOI:10.2166/wst.2004.0594