Does Your City Use Chlorine or Chloramine to Treat Its Water?
All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
There's chlorine in your drinking water, America. Or maybe there's a different chlorine compound called chloramine. This isn't meant to alarm you, though of course it's alarming to many. An entire industry of faucet and countertop and shower filters has sprung up specifically to remove chlorine compounds from the water you drink and bathe in, whether for reasons of health or flavor or beauty.
After all, chlorine tastes and smells bad; some people are sensitive to its aroma even in tiny amounts. It also potentially messes with your hair dye and dries out your skin. Plus, few people realllllly want to drink chlorine, if you ask them. Hence, water filters like WIRED's best-tested shower filter, the Canopy Filtered Showerhead, designed to remove chlorine before you wash with it.
But note that the chlorine is entirely supposed to be there. The US Centers for Disease Control has hailed water chlorination as one of the greatest public health advances of the 20th century, alongside such obscure triumphs as 'penicillin' and 'the polio vaccine.'
Extremely low concentrations of chlorine or chlorine compounds, generally around 1 part per million—well below the Environmental Protection Agency's acceptable limits for human consumption—are added to water pipes to kill potential germs like typhoid and cholera and E. coli that might otherwise grow in water and shorten your life or make it briefly awful. Home filters are designed to remove chlorine after it's already done its job in the pipes.
But if you do buy filters for your drinking water or shower water, there's a complicating factor. More than half of big US cities don't use chlorine, in part because free chlorine in water is highly reactive and has a short half-life and can interact with other substances to create harmful compounds thought to be carcinogenic. More than half of the country's largest cities instead use chloramine, a more stable and persistent chlorine compound.
If you're trying to filter out chlorine compounds, it matters which one your city is using. New York, Atlanta, and Chicago use chlorine in their water systems. But Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Boston use chloramine in their water. Differences Between Chlorine and Chloramine
Chloramine has some potential advantages over chlorine. The aroma is generally perceived as less pronounced in drinking water. Chloramine's longer half-life and longer persistence in pipes also means health authorities can use lower quantities and still maintain levels needed to disinfect pipes.
But chloramine's relative stability can also make it harder to filter out of water than pure chlorine, especially using shower water filters that rely on chemical reactions to neutralize chlorine. While chloramine will oxidize relatively quickly in open air when exposed to light, brewers in cities that use chloramine often use chemical tablets to neutralize chloramine. Photograph: Matthew Korfhage
Knowing which substance your city uses will help you determine which filters will work best to get rid of it. The certification arm of the National Science Foundation, which has seen drastic and systematic cutbacks in recent months under DOGE, traditionally offers reliable testing standards for chlorine removal for water filters, certifying chlorine removal over thousands of gallons of water. And so if your city uses chlorine, the most reliable gauge of a water filter's effectiveness has generally been whether it's been tested and certified to NSF standards.
For shower filters, the standard for chlorine filtration is NSF/ANSI standard 177. Most makers of shower water filters in particular have not received certification and don't share independent data. But there's at least one exception in the United States: The Weddell Duo inline shower filter is certified to remove chlorine from water systems treated with free chlorine.
For chloramine systems, the NSF doesn't offer a specific standard, muddying the waters a bit. So I did my own testing using home lab kits designed for pools and aquariums. In general, I found that filters that used activated or catalyzed carbon and multistage filters appeared to fare better at removing chloramine levels.
Specifically, our testing indicated that only a few shower filters on the market removed chloramine down to undetectable levels, in cities with chloraminated systems. These included the Canopy Filtered Showerhead ($170), the Afina A-01 Filtered Showerhead ($129), the Hydroviv Filtered Showerhead ($200), and the Curo Filtered Showerhead ($109).
Which is to say: Knowing which chemical your city uses might help you determine which filter is best able to remove chlorine and chlorine compounds from your system. Here's the list for the top 50 most populous cities in the United States. (But note that some cities that use chlorine sometimes temporarily switch to chlorine to disinfect their systems, and vice versa.) Large US Cities That Treat Water With Chloramine Austin, Texas
Boston, Massachusetts
Dallas, Texas
Denver, Colorado
Fort Worth, Texas
Houston, Texas
Indianapolis, Indiana
Kansas City, Missouri
Long Beach, California
Los Angeles, California
Louisville, Kentucky
Miami, Florida
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Oakland, California
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Omaha, Nebraska
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Portland, Oregon
Raleigh, North Carolina
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Tampa, Florida
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Virginia Beach, Virgina
Washington, DC Large US Cities That Treat Water With Chlorine Albuquerque, New Mexico
Arlington, Texas
Atlanta, Georgia.
Bakersfield, California
Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Columbus, Ohio
Detroit, Michigan
El Paso, Texas
Fresno, California
Jacksonville, Florida
Las Vegas, Nevada
Memphis, Tennessee
Mesa, Arizona
Nashville, Tennessee
New York, New York
Phoenix, Arizona
Sacramento, California
San Antonio, Texas
Seattle, Washington
Tucson, Arizona
Baltimore, Maryland
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Researchers Discovered Two Basic Habits That Can Prevent Alzheimer's, And My Aging Millennial Brain Is Paying Attention
Can delaying a disease as monstrous as Alzheimer's be as simple as walking and eating nutritious foods? To some degree, yes. A June 2025 study in Molecular Neurodegeneration assessed this topic and concluded that 'up to 45% of dementia risk can be attributed to modifiable risk factors,' namely exercise and diet. What happens, the study explained, is that those two habits boost BDNF, or brain-derived neurotrophic factor. BDNF is a protein that aids neuroplasticity, or the brain's ability to adapt, learn and remember. HuffPost spoke to a doctor about the study's findings, and he said they make sense. Related: 'Walking and diet are two of the simplest ways we know to boost BDNF, a key protein that helps brain cells grow, repair and communicate,' said Dr. Alexander Zubkov, a neurologist and board advisory member of 1MD Nutrition who specializes in neurodegenerative disorders and functional medicine. 'Higher BDNF levels are strongly linked to better memory and slower cognitive decline.' The opposite holds, too: A decrease in BDNF is often seen in people who have neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's, according to a 2015 study in Archives of Medical Science. But what does 'delaying Alzheimer's' even mean in this case? And how much walking and which foods are most helpful? Ahead, we'll answer those questions and more with insights from the study and Zubkov. What does 'delaying Alzheimer's' even mean? Related: Is 'delaying Alzheimer's' the same as preventing dementia diseases completely, or can it only be applied to people who are currently or about to develop the condition? 'When we talk about 'delaying Alzheimer's,' we're not talking about preventing the disease entirely,' Zubkov said. 'We're talking about slowing how quickly the symptoms appear or progress.' For someone who's starting to experience early changes in their brain, he continued, that could mean a few extra years of clear thinking and independence. That's significant. How does walking generate BDNF? Related: As mentioned, walking is a crucial way to increase BDNF expression. A 2025 study in Brain Sciences reported that walking, particularly at moderate to high intensities, increases BDNF levels, especially right after the exercise. It also found that walking increased BDNF by 11%. But how does that happen? 'Something as basic as a brisk daily walk increases blood flow and oxygen to the brain, which naturally stimulates BDNF release,' Zubkov explained. How much should you walk a day to delay Alzheimer's? Zubkov said there's no 'one magic number' of steps, but he's seen research consistently assert a certain range. 'Most data points to about 7,000 to 8,000 steps a day as a realistic sweet spot for brain and heart health,' he said. That's roughly three to four miles, or an hour to a little over an hour, of walking. The pace matters, too. He encouraged aiming for a brisk pace — aka, fast enough that you can talk, but not sing — for maximum benefits. Additionally, the study found positive results with both acute and long-term exercise. So, try to keep your exercise consistent, but don't give up if you skip a few days. Every walking session counts. What foods can help delay Alzheimer's disease? Related: Nutrition is another key piece, though perhaps not as key as walking. According to the original study mentioned, researchers need more and consistent information on the most beneficial dietary factors and how different foods affect different biomarkers (the latter includes certain proteins, blood pressure and tumors, for example). Additionally, it's important to note that most current research looks at a combination of factors, not diet alone. 'Pairing [walking] with nutrient-rich foods … gives the brain the building blocks it needs to stay resilient,' Zubkov said. With that said, knowledge about brain-healthy foods does exist. The study found positive results with the MIND-diet, or the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay. It's a hybrid of the Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) antihypertensive diet. The MIND-diet includes whole grains; dark, leafy, green vegetables; nuts; olive oil; berries; and even red wine, among other foods and beverages. Zubkov recommended a few key nutrients: omega-3s, antioxidants and polyphenols. More specifically, he encouraged people to eat fatty fish, walnuts, leafy greens and berries, and to drink green tea. Are there other ways to generate BDNF? The other tips Zubkov shared are the typical self-care recommendations you've heard from your doctor: aerobic exercise, resistance training, quality sleep, and stress reduction. Here's a glimpse into what each of those can look like: Aerobic exercise: dancing, swimming, the elliptical, cycling, running Resistance training: push-ups, squats, lunges, planks, using free weights Quality sleep: around six to eight hours, and not 'junk sleep,' aka too little or not solid sleep Stress reduction: deep breathing, talking to friends, meditation, listening to music He added that some early research is looking at peptides, or building blocks of proteins, such as Semax, Selank, and Dihexa, when it comes to influencing BDNF. But beware: 'These are still experimental and should only be used under medical supervision,' Zubkov clarified. Let's keep it simple: If you want to delay Alzheimer's onset, focus on walking and adding nutritious foods, such as walnuts, whole grains and dark green vegetables, into your diet. As both studies and doctors will tell you, these daily habits have a significant impact on your article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Goodful: Also in Goodful: Also in Goodful:
Medscape
32 minutes ago
- Medscape
Even Low Lead Exposure Can Impair Academic Outcomes in Kids
TOPLINE: Every 1-unit increase in blood lead levels in early childhood — even when below the 'safe' threshold of 3.5 µg/dL — was associated with declines in math and reading scores from grades 2 through 11, similar to those seen at higher lead levels. METHODOLOGY: Researchers used the 2021 US CDC's revision of the blood lead reference value to ≥ 3.5 μg/dL. They analyzed data from birth certificates of children born in Iowa from 1989 to 2010, academic test scores from grades 2 through 11, and blood lead testing data from 1990 to 2017. The analysis included 305,256 children (mean age at lead testing, 1.9 years; 49% girls) and nearly 1.8 million math and reading scores to calculate the national percentile rank (NPR). Primary outcomes included NPR scores across grades 2 through 11, comparing children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL with those at or above this threshold. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 37.7% of children had lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL. Among children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL, a 1-unit increase was associated with lower NPR scores in math (-0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30) and in reading (-0.38; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.20). Similarly, for lead levels at ≥ 3.5 μg/dL, every 1-unit increase was linked to a significant decline in NPR scores for math and reading. The trend of declining scores with increasing lead levels was persistent across grades 2 through 11; only the declines in reading scores for grades 10 and 11 were not statistically significant. IN PRACTICE: 'The present work provides further evidence to support that there are no safe levels of lead and that there is a need to continue to reduce or eliminate lead exposure,' the authors of the study wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by George L. Wehby, MPH, PhD, of the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. It was published online on May 28, 2025, in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: Several laboratories used the old 5 μg/dL cutoff to quantify high lead levels. Researchers lacked data on any lead-related interventions the children may have received. DISCLOSURES: Wehby reported receiving grants from the Gates Foundation during the conduct of this study. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
32 minutes ago
- Medscape
Health Issues More Likely in Rural vs Urban Caregivers
TOPLINE: Caregivers living in rural areas reported poorer general and physical health and were more likely to smoke and have obesity than caregivers in urban areas, according to a recent analysis. METHODOLOGY: Researchers analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey to study the differences in sociodemographic characteristics, experiences, and health of caregivers in rural and urban settings. Participants were identified as unpaid caregivers if they provided regular care to a friend or family member with a health problem or disability in the past 30 days. Rurality was defined using a 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, and participants were classified as living in rural counties if they resided in micropolitan or noncore counties and living in urban counties if they resided in metro counties. A total of 44,274 unpaid caregivers (60% women) from 47 US states participated, of whom one quarter lived in rural counties. Caregiving attributes, including relationship to the care recipient, duration of caregiving, and assistance with activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, were analyzed. The well-being of caregivers was assessed through their health, health behaviors, and health-related quality of life. TAKEAWAY: Rural caregivers were more likely to have obesity (42.9% vs 37.5%; P < .0001). Rural caregivers were more likely to be current smokers (24.2% vs 15.5%; P < .0001) but less likely to be binge drinkers (12.7% vs 15.3%; P = .003) than urban caregivers. Rural caregivers were more likely than urban caregivers to report fair or poor general health (20.3% vs 17.0%; P = .0003). No significant differences were found in mental health or limited activity in the past month between rural and urban caregivers. IN PRACTICE: 'This study is extremely valuable for members of rural communities as it allows policy makers to better understand the landscape of caregiving amongst minoritized rural residents and help program developers design and implement initiatives for rural caregivers,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Emma Kathryn Boswell, MPH, of the University of South Carolina Rural Health Research Center at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. It was published online on June 13, 2025, in The Journal of Rural Health. LIMITATIONS: The reliance on self-reported data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System may have introduced recall and social desirability bias. The cross-sectional design limited the ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships between caregiving and health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
