A class of industrial chemicals. Home treatment claims on this site are limited to product-specific NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 PFAS reduction listings.
Filters that address this
Kitchen RO when the exact model is in a certifier directory for PFAS (often PFOA/PFOS) under NSF/ANSI 53 or 58. A generic “NSF” badge is not that listing. Not a medical claim.
Some links are affiliate links. If you buy through one, we may earn a commission. That does not change the match, and it is not a medical claim.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Kitchen under-sink RO. Tagged Amazon listing. Check NSF/ANSI 58 on the exact page if PFAS is why you are shopping.
Category
health effects-standard
EPA status
EPA has set drinking-water standards for certain PFAS and tells households to look for NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 PFAS reduction listings. As of EPA’s April 2024 note, those listings do not yet guarantee reduction to the newest EPA MCLs.
Typical sources
Industrial and consumer products; firefighting foam; some public-water detections. Check the CCR and EPA PFAS tools for the system — do not invent a local number.
What actually fits
Some links are affiliate links. If you buy through one, we may earn a commission. That does not change the match, and it is not a medical claim.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
We will not write medical endpoints. EPA says exposure to PFAS may lead to health problems and that reducing PFAS in water limits exposure. That is the ceiling of our health language.
Shopping language is narrower: the exact model listed for PFAS (often PFOA/PFOS) under NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 by NSF, WQA, IAPMO, UL, or CSA. See the PFAS-capable drinking water guide.
A whole-house taste-and-odor carbon tank is chlorine/chloramine until proven otherwise in a directory.
Cities on file
Only numbers and notes already printed on a city Markdown file. We do not invent a detection to fill this list.
17,939 files only point at EPA UCMR 5 and do not print a local PFAS number. Those are not ranked here.
Highest cited numbers
Only values already printed on a utility report. Sort is the optional numeric field, not a new lab result.
Brentwood — The 2024 CCR table we opened does not print PFAS numbers and does not list PFAS as detections. This file does not invent one.
Buellton — The 2025 CCR tables we opened do not print a PFAS detection row. This file does not invent one.
Chino — The 2024 booklet says the city participated in UCMR 5 and that unregulated-contaminant data is available on request. The tables we opened do not print a PFAS detection row. This file does not invent one.
Discovery Bay — UCMR 5 PFAS sampling collected in 2024; results described as non-detectable or well below reporting limits.
Dixon — The City of Dixon 2024 CCR table we opened does not print PFAS numbers and does not list PFAS as detections. The Cal Water Dixon District table we opened also does not list PFAS detections. This file does not invent one.
Fontana — The 2024 report says monitoring for over 100 additional constituents, including PFAS, found none of those constituents detected. That is the report’s sentence, not a UCMR download.
Hollister — The 2024 CCR tables we opened do not print a PFAS detection row. This file does not invent one.
Irvine — PFOA first local column 1.2 ppt (ND–2.3). Distribution PFBA average 7.85 ppt (7.8–7.9). PFPeA average 1.9 ppt (ND–3.8).
Lathrop — 15 ppt (range 13–17) on the unregulated table — that source’s printed result, not a blended hardness number.
Long Beach — UCMR5 2023–2024: all PFAS not detected. Lithium MWD zone average 22.75 ppb (ND–54). Blended zone average 11.25 ppb (ND–20).
Los Angeles — LADWP’s regulatory-compliance page says PFAS were detected in a few individual wells and that extracted water is blended with other wells and surface water before distribution. This file does not invent a distribution number.
Malibu — The 2025 District 29 tables we opened do not print a PFAS detection row or a hexavalent chromium row. This file does not invent either number.
Oakley — The booklet has a general PFAS paragraph. The Diablo Water District tables we opened do not print a PFAS detection row. This file does not invent one.
Paso Robles — Open the current Paso Robles Water Quality Report and EPA’s UCMR 5 Data Finder for this PWS. This file does not invent a detection from a ranking site.
Rancho Cucamonga — The 2024 tables we opened do not print a PFAS detection row. Open a later CVWD report or EPA’s UCMR 5 Data Finder. This file does not invent a detection.
San Francisco — UCMR 5 PFAS and lithium not detected, 2023–2024.
San Juan Bautista — The 2024 CCR tables we opened do not print a PFAS row and do not print a hexavalent chromium row. This file does not invent either number.
Santa Clarita — PFOS groundwater range <MRL–5.2 ng/L, average <MRL; District #36 range <MRL–5.5, average 4.1. PFOA groundwater range <MRL–5.9 ng/L, average <MRL; District #36 range <MRL–4.8, average <MRL.
Santa Paula — Lithium 35 µg/L (sample date 11/12/2024). Listed PFAS suite not detected above method reporting limits.
Hartford — MDC’s water-quality page and 2024 report discuss UCMR 5 PFAS testing with no detections in the 2023 rounds cited there. This file does not invent a detection.
Rochester — The 2025 report prints a UCMR5 table. Rochester Water Works Hemlock samples are labeled ALL NOT DETECTED on that extract. Open the report for the full labeled grid. This file does not invent a ppt average.
Kennewick — The 2025 CCR discusses PFAS sampling at the Ranney collectors against Washington state SALs. Open that table in the city report. This file does not copy a third-party PFAS number.
Tacoma — The 2025 report narrative says UCMR5 found no PFAS or lithium in the Green River supply, and two PFAS compounds in groundwater below state action levels. Open the report for those labeled results. This file does not invent a citywide ppt average.