Water filters not working well in France, says consumer report

Water filters in France are not effectively removing pollutants from drinking water, says a report published by consumer magazine 60 Millions de consommateurs.

A growing number of people in France are using filters to remove pollutants from water after it was announced that tap water is banned in 16 French communes due to contamination by PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals’. 

It was also recently reported that four French water brands from the Nestlé Waters group do not conform to health quality regulations. Vittel, Hépar, Perrier, and Contrex, were accused of selling products containing bacteria and chemical contaminants. 

Water filters can come in different forms, from filters that are attached to bottles, decanters or taps, to natural methods such as ceramic beads or binchotan (Japanese activated charcoal). 

The aim of using one of these filters is that beneficial minerals found in water (such as calcium, magnesium and bicarbonates) are allowed to pass through, while pollutants and non-essential compounds (such as chlorides, sulphates and sodium) are retained. 

60 Millions de consommateurs tested water filters from the brands Brita, Aarke, Homeside and Hydropure, to see how effectively they manage to remove minerals, metals, nitrites and nitrates, the latter of which can make blood less effective at transporting oxygen, particularly in infants.

The tests lasted between 21 and 29 days, using demineralised water samples that were prepared by “adding various compounds in precise concentrations close to regulatory thresholds.” 

Filter performance is ‘very uneven’

The 60 Millions de consommateurs report states the tested decanters, which each use an activated carbon filter, showed “very uneven” results. 

None of the brands were successful on all testing criteria and none were able to properly remove PFAS, with concentration levels in filtered water always remaining above 120 µg/L (microgram per litre).

Aarke 

The Aarke model prevented ‘healthy’ minerals from remaining in the water sample but allowed elevated levels of sodium to filter through. It did however give an “excellent performance” when removing toxic metals such as lead and nickel.

Microbiological analyses conducted on the Aarke-filtered water showed high levels of ‘revivifiable’ germs (those susceptible to growing in water) as well as faecal contamination in the form of coliform bacteria, making the water non-compliant with drinking water standards. This contamination was no longer traceable once the filter had been rinsed.  

Brita

The Brita bottle was most successful at preserving calcium and magnesium in the water, however, like Aarke, elevated levels of sodium were also allowed to pass through. It also retained just 14.1% of nitrites and struggled to remove traces of lead and nickel. 

Brita effectively removed 96.5% of pesticides from the water and performed well in microbiological analyses, effective against pathogenic and environmental germs. 

Homeside

The Homeside filter retained excessive amounts of calcium and magnesium. Some 62% of pesticides were removed from the water, however the samples were free of ‘revivifiable’ germs, pathogens and environmental contaminants.

Hydropure

The Hydropure filter was the only one deemed adequate with regards to effective and consistent removal of nitrites and nitrates.

It was also noted that each of the filters, particularly the Hydropure model, released a small amount of dissolved organic charcoal into the water. 

Are tap filters more effective?

The report also tested tap filters from the brands Brita and Hydropure, which were found to be more effective overall than the decanters regarding the filtering of pesticides, which were eliminated by almost 100%. 

The Hydropure tap filter was found to be particularly good at removing nitrates and metals. 

Both filters struggled to retain traces of nickel, and PFAs were also able to pass through. 

Water filtered by the Hydropure model showed limited traces of germs and bacteria, while Brita water samples contained “numerous revivable germs” which worsened throughout the testing period. 

How to check the quality of your drinking water

A map indicating the level of PFAS chemicals in tap water across France was published by the French government earlier this year.

Although it is not possible for individuals to directly and precisely assess how the level of PFAS translates into health risks, the map summarises 2.3 million analyses across 21,000 sites, providing information on the presence of PFAS in water sources (groundwater, surface water, tap water, and industrial water sites).