Skip to the story
All StoriesPoliticsConflict & SecurityBusiness & EconomyScience & TechHealthClimateMedia
All stories
Health6 outlets ran this3 min read

US drinking water PFAS levels may be double reported amounts

New study uses computer models to estimate undercounted 'forever chemicals' in water systems.

AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Published
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

What this story says

  • US drinking water could contain double the reported levels of PFAS, according to a new study.
  • Researchers used computer models to analyze EPA data on PFAS concentrations in community water systems.
  • Current reporting methods may capture only 44% of the average concentration of 25 PFAS chemicals.
  • The study's lead author stated the research examines how measurements are summarized, not that every below-limit result poses a health risk.

Who covered it

Left 67%(4)Centre 16%(1)Right 17%(1)

Percentages are shares of the 6 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. Coverage measured .

Trust

70/100

Craft

70/100

Hype

45/100

6 sources · methodology

US drinking water may contain twice the amount of PFAS, commonly known as 'forever chemicals', than is currently reported, a new study estimates. Researchers employed computer models to analyze data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning PFAS concentrations in community water systems. The study suggests that current reporting practices, which often treat levels below minimum reporting thresholds as zero, capture only 44% of the average concentration of 25 specific PFAS chemicals.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, public water systems are required by the EPA to monitor 29 PFAS chemicals. These substances are known for their persistence in the environment and have been linked to various health issues. The study's lead author, Gehendra Kharel of Texas Christian University, explained that the research focuses on how measurements are summarized and does not claim that every result below the reporting limit indicates a health risk.

Disagreement on reporting methods

The study, published in Cell Reports Sustainability, used computer models to estimate PFAS concentrations for records listed as below the minimum reporting level (MRL). Phys.org reported that the models generated 500 estimates for each below-limit value, which were then averaged. The study found that treating these below-limit results as zero meant that current reports captured only 44% of the estimated average concentration of 25 PFAS across 9,991 community water systems. The EPA has set legally enforceable limits for six PFAS, but the study's model estimated that the national average concentration for these six chemicals could be 5.2 nanograms per liter, compared to the reported average of 2.6 nanograms per liter when below-limit results are counted as zero.

What the coverage left out

None of the left-rated digests mention the specific journal in which the study was published, Cell Reports Sustainability. The right-rated digest does not mention the specific percentage of average concentration captured by current reporting methods (44%) or the number of PFAS chemicals analyzed (25).

Tags:#PFAS#WaterQuality#EnvironmentalHealth#EPA#ForeverChemicals

Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 1 time, most recently on 24 Oct 2026, 05:00, and will add the sides that appear.

How each side covered it

Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.

Left

4 rated outlets

  • The left-rated reports led with the potential underestimation of PFAS levels in US drinking water. The Washington Post's headline stated that drinking water "may have much more 'forever chemicals' than EPA reports." Gizmodo's headline also highlighted that levels "may be more than twice as high as reported." The newlede.org digest noted that the study used computer modeling to estimate that EPA reports capture only 44% of the average combined concentration of 25 PFAS in US water systems. All three left-rated digests mentioned that current reporting methods could be creating a significant knowledge gap by only counting PFAS levels above minimum reporting thresholds.

Centre

1 rated outlet

  • The centre-rated report from Phys.org led with the headline "US drinking water could contain double the reported PFAS levels, model estimates." The full report detailed how common ways of reporting PFAS could underestimate concentrations by as much as half. It explained that by counting levels below minimum reporting levels as zero, current reports capture only 44% of the average concentration of 25 PFAS. The report also included a quote from the study's first author, Gehendra Kharel, clarifying that the research examines how measurements are summarized and does not establish that every below-limit result poses a health risk.

Right

1 rated outlet

  • The right-rated digest from dailymail.com stated in its headline that "US water may contain twice as many 'forever chemicals' as reported." The digest also mentioned that the study comes from researchers at Texas Christian University and suggests that drinking water in America may contain twice as many forever chemicals as health agencies report.

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover US drinking water PFAS levels may be double reported amounts?
Of the 6 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 67% are rated left, 16% are rated centre, 17% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
Is US drinking water PFAS levels may be double reported amounts left or right?
Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 6 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
Is the coverage of US drinking water PFAS levels may be double reported amounts biased?
US drinking water PFAS levels may be double reported amounts is one event reported by 6 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
Which outlets covered US drinking water PFAS levels may be double reported amounts?
6 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
How much more PFAS might be in US drinking water than reported?
A new study estimates that US drinking water could contain double the reported levels of PFAS. Researchers used computer models to analyze EPA data and found that current reporting methods may capture only 44% of the average concentration of 25 PFAS chemicals.
What are PFAS and why are they a concern?
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are man-made chemicals known as 'forever chemicals' due to their persistence in the environment. Previous research has linked PFAS exposure to health issues including cancer, liver damage, and developmental problems in children.
Does the study claim all under-limit PFAS results are dangerous?
No, the study's lead author stated that the research examines how measurements are summarized and does not establish that every below-limit result poses a health risk. The focus is on how treating these results as zero affects the overall picture of PFAS occurrence.

Read it at the source

6 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.

Left

4

Centre

1

Right

1

Not rated

0

No outlet in this group ran the story.

How did this read?

About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.

More in Health

All Health →
Trump announces 5M nursing-home nurse initiative at Florida midterm rally3 min readPresident Trump announces nursing‑home nurse recruitment initiative at Florida rallyRead storyVanessa Trump announces she is cancer-free2 min readVanessa Trump announces she is cancer-freeRead story22일(현지시간) 나이지리아에서 에볼라 사례가 보고된 후 무르탈라 무하메드 국제공항의 건강검진소에 표시된 배너 옆에 여행자들이 서 있다. 로이터연합뉴스3 min readUS to require air passengers to declare no recent travel to DRCRead story

Elsewhere on the site

US opposes UN slavery resolution as reparations efforts face hurdlesPolitics•4 min readUS opposes UN slavery resolution as reparations efforts face hurdlesRandy FinePolitics•3 min readRep. Randy Fine Threatens Ilhan Omar Expulsion Over Immigration ProbeCBP Commissioner Rodney Scott defends $46 billion Big Bend wall despite judge‑ordered pausePolitics•3 min readCBP Commissioner Rodney Scott defends $46 billion Big Bend wall despite judge‑ordered pauseBobb Vergiels suffered from kidney stones for decades before being diagnosed with late-stage kidney failurePolitics•2 min readMarva Cook charged with illegal voting in New York
US Drinking Water PFAS Levels | MediaBias News