Drinking Water Analysis: Sourcing Options for Filtered Water
Understanding the environmental, water quality, and economic impact of various filtered water
delivery systems
A research proposal submitted to the Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California at San Diego
Troy Souther
USP 186 Section A01
tsouther@ucsd.edu
October 18, 2011
Abstract
This research proposal will examine the costs, environmental impact, water quality, and
convenience offered by the various types of filtered water sourcing, such as home and
office water delivery, single-use disposable bottles, and home and office water filtration.
Each factor will be analyzed in the context of existing scholarly articles and original
research. After the analysis has been completed, the proposal will make an informed
policy argument advocating for UC San Diego to discontinue the practice of selling and
distributing transported bottled water on campus, given the significant advantages held by
in-office water filtration in every relevant area of concern. Home and office water
filtration systems will be proposed in all logistically plausible locations currently utilizing
water delivery, and suggestions will be made for reducing the amount of single-use
disposable bottles currently consumed on campus.
Key terms: HOWF (Home and Office Water Filtration), HOWD (Home and Office Water
Delivery), SUDB (Single-use Disposable Bottles), water quality, environmental impact,
fiscal impact
Introduction
UC San Diego has a well-deserved reputation as a “green” campus, having been recently
named as one of the most ecologically friendly campuses in America by the Sierra Club. This
study attempts to evaluate and critique the continued use and sale of bottled water on campus in
all its forms, from retail sales of individual bottled water to the use of delivery services that
regularly bring filtered water to campus by truck.
Since this research is local in focus, only anecdotal evidence currently exists for gauging
the campus-wide range and scope of the issue, and thus, its potential environmental impact. On a
1
global scale, it has been well documented that the transportation of drinking water through
inefficient infrastructure generates millions of tons of carbon emissions each year. Bottled water
is now the second most-consumed beverage in America, behind only carbonated soft drinks, at
over 29 gallons per person, per year (Rodwan 2009, 13). The Pacific Institute estimates that in
2006, 17 million barrels of oil were consumed in the production of bottles for water, 2.5 million
tons of carbon dioxide were generated producing the water itself, and 3 liters of water were used
to create every 1 liter of bottled water (Pacific Institute, 2008). These figures are only inclusive
of production, and do not incorporate the additional impact of transportation. Gleick and Cooley
(2009, 5) have found that long-range transport of water can lead to at least doubling the
environmental impact of bottled water.
Cost analysis is another key factor in determining the potential for implementing a
campus-wide policy of Home and Office Water Filtration (HOWF) as an alternative to Home
and Office Water Delivery (HOWD) or Single-Use Disposable Bottles (SUDB). Preliminary
research shows that HOWF Systems have an average per-gallon-cost of between 7 and 20 cents
per gallon, inclusive of the cost of the installed filtration device. At enterprise levels, HOWD
systems offered by companies like Sparkletts and Arrowhead cost between $1.04 (Sparkletts,
2011) and $1.55 per gallon (Arrowhead, 2011), which equates to a 500% price difference, at
minimum. Energy costs of HOWF systems must be further evaluated, but it is unlikely that these
costs will add significantly enough to the per-gallon cost of HOWF systems to undercut their
large savings when compared to HOWD/SUDB options.
As a review of scientific literature and research, this research paper will not seek to
determine an accurate and comprehensive cost for adoption on the UC San Diego campus.
Rather, the existing literature and estimates will be scaled as an approximation to what UCSD’s
2
water filtration usage is estimated to be. In addition, much of the research on this topic has
concluded that tap municipal water, delivered through the existing municipal infrastructure
without any further filtration, is by far the most economical and environmentally friendly option
for drinking water. However, since adoption of both HOWD/SUDB systems and the sale of
single-use bottled water through campus retail outlets is already widespread, this research will
attempt to compare the costs of products of similar taste, quality, and levels of consumption
without requiring any consumer adjustment to a less desirable product. Furthermore, this review
will not take into account the contributing costs often associated with drinking water, such as
chilled or heated water dispensers, the risk of workplace injury due to slips, falls, or muscle
strain due to changing heavy bottles, etc.
Conceptual Framework/Literature Review
This paper will seek to analyze the costs and benefits of two competing s for the delivery
of purified drinking water, with the expected result of HOWF systems proving more costeffective, environmentally friendly, and comparable in quality (at a minimum).
The importance of this research is clear. With continuing budget shortfalls and nearuniversal consensus about the effects of carbon emissions on the global climate, it is entirely
reasonable to look for systemic practices within our local communities which can help mitigate
as much of our environmental impact as is practicably plausible. It is noteworthy that many of
the ways in which institutions and individuals attempt to improve their environmental impact
carry relatively high monetary and convenience costs, which are among the most commonly
cited reasons cited for not adopting them. If the preliminary research proves conclusive, this will
not be the case with abandoning HOWD/SUDB systems for widespread HOWF adoption on
3
campus. It will be more convenient, require less maintenance, cost significantly less, and reduce
UC San Diego’s environmental impact considerably all without any perceptible drawbacks, other
than the initial cost of installation and purchasing HOWF systems.
There has been considerable research on this topic over the last decade, given the
growing ubiquity of both retail-sold SUDB and HOWD services. Most research has been purely
academic, attempting to show that locally sourced water is far more environmentally friendly
than the various forms of bottled water.
Gleick and Cooley’s “Energy Implications of Bottled Water” (2009) has examined this.
G&C’s analysis examines most of the factors that make up the whole of bottled water’s energy
use, including the production of volume and production elements of plastic bottles, energy
required for water purification, and transportation costs from the regional to international levels.
Their research goes beyond the scope of this paper, covering the energy requirements of
refrigeration, but it is segmented in a way that should make extracting only relevant data
possible.
There has also been research comparing the relative energy use of three different models
of delivering drinking water to consumer locations. Dettore (2009) has compared HOWD
systems, SUDB sold in 24-packs, and municipal tap water for their relative energy use. His
analysis, much like Gleick and Cooley’s, attempts to track all relevant points of energy use, from
production of drinking vessels to the energy cost of reusing these drinking vessels, if applicable.
Recycled materials, reusable dishes which are periodically washed, and several types of plastic
are all analyzed individually to give as full an account as possible of the total energy use of each
potential solution. The scope of this research will likely be smaller than Dettore’s, but will
4
attempt to aggregate his more detailed data into a simplified average that can be applied to UC
San Diego’s particular usage pattern.
There has been very little academic research that directly compares the effectiveness and
cost-efficiency of HOWF systems against HOWD/SUDB options, but Brastad (2010) has done
some analysis of forward osmosis as a means of water softening in residential settings, finding
some problems with cost-effectiveness at this stage, though it should be noted that reverse (not
forward) osmosis is the normative method for drinking water purification in home settings.
Regardless, this research should shed some light on the kinds of systems available and the
economic feasibility of these systems.
Many of the energy figures often cited when analyzing the impact of bottled water come
from the Pacific Institute, for which Gleick (previously cited) is the co-founder and president.
The institute’s figures have called into question a commonly held figure of 1.5 million barrels of
oil used in the annual production of bottles for water, attributing them to a communication error
with a journalist. Instead the Pacific Institute posits that the actual figure is approximately 17
million barrels of oil annually. Rodwan (2009) has sourced information from the beverage
industry showing the rapid growth of the bottled water industry in both domestic and world
markets, showing domestic growth from 2000-08 from 4.7 million gallons annually to 8.7
millions annually. In addition, annual worldwide volume has increased from 38.1 million gallons
to 52.6 million gallons between 2003-08. This information will be useful in placing the relative
impact of the various methods of filtered water delivery into context, and will reinforce the
urgency of analyzing and implementing some alternative method of filtered water delivery.
Specifically, this research project will attempt to:
5
1)
2)
3)
Take a holistic view of all major contributing factors that comprise the
economic, water quality, convenience, and environmental aspects of filtered
water delivery
Deliver an estimate of the potential effect that switching from
HOWD/SUDB to HOWF systems can be reasonably expected to contribute
to UC San Diego’s fiscal and environmental impact
Address any foreseeable impediments to adopting this policy
Though the benefits of switching from a HOWD/SUDB system to a HOWF system are
clear on a global scale, this research will provide insight into how UC San Diego’s potential
economic and environmental bottom line might be affected given the university’s current,
specific filtered water consumption levels. There is little or no real-world data available for what
impact such a policy change might have at a given consumption level, nor is there any single
dataset that takes a holistic approach to the economic, environmental, and water quality issues at
work when considering such a policy shift. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that aggregating
these various types of data into one cohesive analysis at UC San Diego’s current level of usage
might be useful to other campuses and large commercial enterprises which currently rely on
HOWD for their filtered water needs. It is also likely that the variance in usage beyond a certain
threshold will have a diminishing effect on the economic benefit for many major consumers of
HOWD. Given this, there is strong potential that though this research will be applied directly to
UC San Diego, it will be highly useful to other large organizations considering the costs and
benefits of switching from HOWD/SUDB to a HOWF model.
Research Design and Methods
Given the existing body of research outlined above, the major areas of focus for original
research will focus on two key areas:
1)
The environmental impact of HOWF systems
6
2)
3)
UC San Diego’s specific HOWD/SUDB usage profile
Analysis of the economic impact of switching to a HOWF model including
immediate costs, 1-year costs, and costs over the typical life cycle of HOWF
units
There is not a significant amount of research dedicated to the environmental impact of
HOWF systems. If this information cannot be sourced from the existing body of research, it will
be collected from various vendors of HOWF systems based on their own testing. The primary
focus will be on the usage of electricity, which will give a good indication of the carbon impact
these devices can be expected to have, but data regarding wasted water and toxicity information
will be gathered as well. The existing research indicates clearly that the financial cost of HOWF
systems are significantly lower than HOWD and SUDB filtered water sourcing, but the lack of
easily available environmental data makes this area of research a priority. It is likely that a
significant amount of data will need to be aggregated in order to evaluate the total environmental
impact of HOWF systems, but every effort will be made to keep the data simple enough for
comparisons with existing data for HOWD/SUDB filtered water delivery.
UC San Diego’s usage of HOWD/SUDB water is not readily available, but should be
reasonably simple, if time consuming, to locate. Preliminary anecdotal evidence seems to
suggest that there are one or two campus-wide contracts for HOWD, so there should be some
documentation of the campus’ usage available. Contact has already been made with several staff
members in different departments to try and locate this information. SUDB data might be more
difficult obtain, but there are two possibilities that can be explored to obtain this information, or
at least a useable approximation of it. First, the attempt will be made to contact the major
vendors on campus (e.g. Housing and Dining Services, Sunrise Market in Price Center, vending
machine contractors, etc.) to see how much SUDB water is sold in a given month or year. If this
data proves incomplete, contact will be made with Facilities and Services to determine
7
approximately how much PET and HDPE plastic is recycled in a given year, of which the
majority is likely to be drink containers. From that data, the percentages found in Rodwan (2009)
will give a rough estimate of how much plastic waste is caused by SUDB. Though inexact, it is
expected that the carbon output of plastic bottle production will be higher than that of HOWF by
enough of a margin to make exact data unnecessary to illustrate the disparity between the
competing filtered water delivery methods.
Economic analysis will be a straightforward process once all of the other data is
collected. Once the figures related to HOWD/SUDB usage are obtained, environmental impact
data can be easily extrapolated using the methodology found in both Dettore (2009) and Gleick
(2009). Financial impact data will be derived using much the same method. Contract data from
HOWD providers will likely include information related to equipment (e.g. water coolers) on
campus, but even if it does not, it is likely that the delivery locations for HOWD will give a clear
sense of where filtered water is being used. Based on that data, any areas where HOWF
installation might not be possible will be identified and factored into both economic and financial
analysis. GIS will be used to generate a map of existing HOWD locations and proposed HOWF
installations.
Research will likely take approximately 8 weeks. Sourcing HOWD contracts and SUDB
usage data will take some time, as will locating problematic areas for HOWF usage on campus.
Costs will be minimal or non-existent, though transportation costs might cost approximately $50
over the course of the research.
Outcome
8
This research will result in a conclusive analysis of the feasibility of switching from
HOWD/SUDB to HOWF-sourced filtered water on campus, complete with environmental
impact analysis, cost analysis, and water quality analysis.
This UC San Diego exploratory case study will incorporate:
1) Detailed usage statistics for HOWD/SUDB on campus
2) A geographic map of existing HOWD locations and proposed HOWF
installation locations
3) Data regarding the current usage of SUDB
The economic analysis will feature:
1) Expense breakdowns of both the existing and proposed methods of filtered
water delivery
2) An exploration of any potential impediments to adoption of HOWF on
campus (e.g. existing contracts, prohibitive starting costs, sanitary concerns,
etc.)
The goal of this study, as stated previously, is the implementation a new method of
filtered water delivery with the following features:
1) Lower cost than the existing HOWD/SUDB model
2) A reduction in the impact of the campus’ method of filtered water delivery on
the environment
3) No reduction in the quality or taste of drinking water available to students and
staff
4) Minimal sacrifice of convenience in obtaining high-quality drinking water
The case study was designed with the goal of full implementation, though the dual targets
of the study, current HOWD and SUDB usage, will make partial implementation a possibility as
well, given the separate impacts of each method of filtered water delivery. It is expected that the
results of this research project will be useful to both UC San Diego and other high-volume users
of HOWD and SUDB in evaluating positive changes they can make to their costs, environmental
impact, convenience, and water quality.
9
Bibliography
Brastad, Kristen S. Water Softening Using Forward Osmosis : Economic and Technical
Feasibility for Residential Systems. Thesis, Milwaukee School of Engineering, 2010.
Milwaukee: MSOE, 2010. Accessed October 15, 2011.
Environmental Protection Agency. "Home Water Filtration Facts." EPA.gov. September
2005. Accessed October 10, 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/faq/pdfs/fs_healthseries_filtration.pdf.
Gleick, Peter H., Heather Cooley, and Pacific Institute.,. "Energy Implications of Bottled
Water." Energy Implications of Bottled Water. 2009. Accessed October 16, 2011.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/17489326/4/1/014009/erl9_1_014009.pdf?request-id=46d3ce60-5d0b-4ba2-b083c0a6bf71b619.
Keoleian, Gregory, Jonathan Bulkley, and Christopher Dettore. "Comparative Life-Cycle
Assessment of Bottled Versus Tap Water Systems." Deep Blue Library - University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor. December 2009. Accessed October 17, 2011.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64482/1/Dettore_thesis.pdf.
Pacific Institute. "Bottled Water Fact Sheet" PacificInst.org. December 2007. Accessed
October 15, 2011.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/bottled_water_fa
ctsheet.pdf.
Pacific Institute. "Bottled Water and Energy." Pacific Institute: Research for People and the
Planet. 2008. Accessed October 18, 2011.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/bottled_water/bottled_w
ater_and_energy.html.
Rodwan, John G. "Confronting Challenges: U.S. and International Bottled Water
Developments and Statistics for 2008." BottledWater.org. April/May 2009. Accessed
October 16, 2011.
http://www.bottledwater.org/public/2008%20Market%20Report%20Findings%2
0reported%20in%20April%202009.pdf.
10