Blogs and Articles

10 Parts Per Million

Should the US establish new standards for nitrate?

  • Email This Post Email This Post

For decades, nitrates have boosted the productivity of America’s farmland. However, the crop-plumping substance has also produced negative effects by contributing to algae blooms and endangering humans as a potential carcinogen that accumulates in groundwater sources and soils.

The US drinking water standard for nitrate—10 parts per million—was set in 1991. But recent studies offer evidence of potential long-term health problems related to exposure to low levels of nitrates, indicating that the EPA’s nitrate limit should possibly be reevaluated.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago is seeking a visionary Executive Director. The District is an award-winning wastewater agency which has been a leader in protecting the Chicago area water environment for over a 120 years. For information and to apply, click here or contact [email protected]The District is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Nitrate exists naturally in soils and air. But the rise in concentrations in the nation’s waterways and aquifers is most often the result of fertilizer usage. And nitrate that has been applied on farm fields and not taken up by the crop can remain in the soil for extended periods of time until eventually absorbed by rivers and aquifers.

Researchers consider the buildup of nitrate in soil layers above the groundwater table a serious global issue.

On its own, nitrate is not a carcinogen, explains Circle of Blue’s Brett Walton. But in the body, it’s converted to nitrite, which then reacts to form carcinogenic nitroso compounds. Nitrite reduces the blood’s ability to transport oxygen.  

The EPA’s nitrate standard was originally determined with infant health in mind. Because newborns that ingest water with high levels of nitrate can suffer from methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, it was set based on the average water consumption of a three-month-old baby. 10 parts per million, it was determined, would keep them safe.

However recent studies such as the Iowa Women’s Health Study have pointed to a higher risk of bladder, ovarian, and colorectal cancer from nitrate levels at half the legal limit. Although researchers explain that further research will be needed before making any definitive claims about the health risk at lower levels of nitrate in drinking water, the data is compelling.

The EPA and its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) have expressed interest in reevaluating the health risks of nitrate and nitrite and adjusting the standard levels. Because it is a Safe Drinking Water Act regulation, the consequences of a lower nitrate limit would impact water utilities, many of which may have to install nitrate-removal systems.

What are your thoughts? Is nitrate a problem in your community? What steps has your municipality taken to mitigate its accumulation in water sources? How would your utility be affected by lower nitrate limits?WE_bug_web

Related Posts


  1. Fertilizers are not the problem. The problem is misuse of fertilizers. Farmers have all the tools needed to apply the right amount of fertilizer at the right time to maximize crop yields available to them, just like they do for irrigation. The fact that few of them actually use those tools is a result of slothful behavior which is encouraged by subsidized water and unscrupulous fertilizer companies. Blame the process, not the product.

  2. The real question is what the ‘allowable’ daily nitrate intake is for a human, before it causes problems. Based on certain criteria (often objected by special interest groups) limits are set for drinking water. Since often most of the daily intake comes from food, the 10 mg/l limit of nitrates in drinking water were set for bottle-fed babies, since this is their only food intake. Everybody needs drinking water, but when we set new limits for certain chemicals, let’s first establish the problems thus chemical is causing and find out where they originate from. In case of drinking water also important is the amount of water consumed. Closing a drinking waterfountain in a park, when people only drink a few sips, does not prevent any of the identified problems.

  3. Phosphorus is still the limiting nutrient to nuisance algae blooms, not nitrogen…no many how many times the misinformation is repeated.

  4. One must consider total Nitrate intake on a daily basis for credible risk analysis. That is very difficult because the food we consume every day varies in Nitrate content. Let us hope the USEPA takes a rational view of the potential problem; A lot of money is necessary if the standard is changed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *