Benchmarking Tap Water Safety in Florida: A Pilot Study Across Six Cities and University Campuses

1. Overview

This pilot study investigates tap water safety across six major Florida cities and their university campuses, focusing on emerging contaminants such as PFAS, microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and heavy metals. Florida’s diverse water sources, coastal aquifers, deep groundwater, and surface reservoirs, make it an ideal test-bed for benchmarking urban water quality. The findings will help define what “safe water” means in practice and offer a replicable model for other states. The project will be conducted independently, with samples analyzed in commercial labs. Ethical approval is not required as no human subjects are involved, but institutional exemption will be secured prior to sampling. The study will run over six months, including preparation, field sampling, laboratory analysis, data interpretation, and reporting. All data, protocols, and results will be shared openly via ResearchHub and a public repository. Monthly updates and a preprint will be posted to ensure transparency and community engagement.

2. Introduction

Access to clean drinking water is a public health necessity, yet recent studies show that U.S. tap water often contains contaminants that aren’t routinely disclosed. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic chemicals used in industrial and consumer products, have been found in 45% of U.S. household water samples according to the U.S. Geological Survey [1]. In Florida, nearly 8.9 million residents have been exposed to PFAS-contaminated drinking water [2]. Similarly, microplastics have been detected in 94% of U.S. tap water samples [3], and Florida’s own Department of Environmental Protection has flagged rising microplastic levels in urban water supplies around Tampa Bay [4]. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) including common drugs like caffeine and ibuprofen, are also frequently found in finished drinking water [5]. These contaminants, along with heavy metals like lead, copper, and arsenic, represent a mix of emerging and legacy pollutants that may pose health risks even at low concentrations.

PFAS are linked to cancer, thyroid disorders, and immune dysfunction [1]. Microplastics can act as carriers for toxic chemicals and have been shown to cross biological membranes [3]. PPCPs, though present at trace levels, are persistent and biologically active, raising concerns about long-term exposure [5]. Heavy metals, especially lead, remain a threat in older infrastructure and can cause neurological and developmental harm.

Florida’s water systems reflect the broader challenges facing urban water quality in the U.S. The state’s geography includes: Shallow coastal aquifers (e.g., Biscayne Aquifer in Miami), vulnerable to saltwater intrusion and surface contamination; Deep karst aquifers (e.g., Floridan Aquifer in Gainesville, Jacksonville, Tallahassee), considered pristine but increasingly stressed by septic systems and PFAS sources [6,7]; Surface water systems (e.g., Hillsborough River in Tampa), exposed to runoff, wastewater, and atmospheric deposition [8,9]. This diversity makes Florida an ideal test-bed for a pilot study. With 23.37 million residents, it’s the third most populous state. The six selected cities, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Gainesville, Jacksonville, and Tallahassee, serve a combined population of 2.9 million, including over 300,000 college students. These campuses and cities represent a significant demographic and geographic cross-section of the state.

The research questions are: 1) What levels of PFAS, microplastics, PPCPs, and heavy metals are present in tap water across major Florida cities and university campuses? 2) Do water quality profiles differ by source type (aquifer vs. surface water)? 3) Are there detectable differences between campus buildings and surrounding city taps? 4) Can a simple health-based scoring system help communicate water safety to the public?

The hypotheses are: H1: PFAS compounds will be detected in tap water from at least four of the six target cities, with some samples exceeding EPA thresholds. H2: Microplastic concentrations will be higher in surface-water-fed systems (e.g., Tampa) than in aquifer-fed systems (e.g., Gainesville). H3: PPCPs will be present in trace amounts in cities with known wastewater reuse or septic system prevalence. H4: Heavy metal levels will remain below EPA action levels, but isolated spikes may occur due to building-specific plumbing.

This study aims to quantify and compare key contaminants, PFAS, microplastics, select PPCPs, and heavy metals, in tap water from six major Florida cities and their university campuses. The study will produce Florida’s first independent, side-by-side comparison of tap water quality across urban centers and campuses. Regardless of the findings, the project will: provide actionable data for local and state decision-makers, Validate or challenge current treatment practices, Offer a replicable model for statewide benchmarking that other states can adopt. By combining rigorous sampling, advanced lab analysis, and open-access reporting, this project will help define what “safe water” really means and how we measure it.

3. Methods

Participants/Sample

Tap water samples will be collected from six Florida cities and seven university campuses: Miami (Florida International University and University of Miami), Tampa (University of South Florida), Orlando (University of Central Florida), Gainesville (University of Florida, Jacksonville (University of North Florida), Tallahassee (Florida State University). The figure provided shows the sampling distribution of these sites across the state.

Inclusion Criteria includes: publicly accessible taps in high-traffic university campus buildings (e.g., libraries, cafeterias) and each city (e.g., residential or public building) where feasible. The exclusion criteria includes: private wells or taps not connected to municipal water systems and buildings undergoing plumbing repairs or flushing during sampling week

Sampling sites will be coordinated with campus facility managers and local collaborators. No human subjects are involved. We will collect 52 samples total (4 samples per site). This allows for comparison across water source types and infrastructure. A formal power analysis is not applicable due to the observational nature of the study, but the sample size is sufficient for descriptive statistics and exploratory comparisons.

Materials and Procedures

Sampling Protocol: Water will be flushed from the taps for 2–3 minutes before collection. samples will be collected in 2L HDPE bottles (PFAS-free), with additional amber glass bottles for PPCPs and microplastics. On-site measurements of pH, temperature, conductivity, chlorine, and visual inspection (color, turbidity, odor) will be conducted. Samples will be preserved per EPA guidelines and transported on ice to a commercial lab within 48 hours.

Laboratory Analysis: PFAS: Quantify six EPA-priority compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, PFBS) using Liquid Chromatography in tandem with Mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS). Microplastics: Filter and count particles using microscopy. PPCPs: Target 14–20 compounds (e.g., caffeine, ibuprofen, carbamazepine, atrazine, bisphenol-A) LC-MS. Heavy Metals: Analyze lead, copper, arsenic, iron, and others using Inductively Couple Plasma Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS).

Planned Analyses

Preprocessing: Normalize concentrations to ng/L or particles/L and Quality control checks for instrument calibration and sample integrity.

Statistical Tests: Descriptive statistics for each contaminant class, ANOVA to compare levels across cities and water source types, Correlation analysis between contaminant levels and source type

Contingent Analyses: -If PFAS levels exceed EPA thresholds, then we will map compound-specific distributions and compare to known contamination sites. -If microplastics are found in aquifer-fed systems, then we will explore airborne or distribution system entry as possible sources. -If PPCPs are detected in surface water cities only, then we will assess wastewater influence using compound profiles.

Ethics and Data Management

Ethical Approval: No human subjects are involved. We will confirm exemption status with our institution’s IRB.

Confidentiality: No personal data will be collected. Sampling locations will be anonymized unless public.

Data Sharing: All raw data, lab results, and analysis scripts will be uploaded to an open-access repository. Monthly updates will be posted on ResearchHub. A preprint will be submitted upon completion.

4. Budget

Category	Amount (USD)	Description
Personnel Support	$38,000	Covers six months of full-time work by the lead investigator, including field sampling, lab coordination, data analysis, reporting, and open science commitments. Rate reflects postdoctoral-level compensation with fringe.
Travel and Field Sampling	$6,500	Fuel, lodging, per diem, and vehicle rental for statewide sampling (~10 days). Includes shipping costs for samples on ice.
Lab Supplies & Consumables	$10,000	Sampling bottles, filters, reagents, standards, gloves, and other disposables for PFAS, PPCPs, metals, and microplastics.
Instrument Use & Lab Fees	$16,000	LC-MS/MS, ICP-MS, and microscopy time at FIU and/or external labs. Includes contingency for re-runs or backup lab access.
Microplastic Analysis Tools	$2,500	Microscope accessories, staining dyes, and hourly support for particle counting.
Contingency for Lab Work	$2,000	Buffer for unexpected sample retests or additional compound analysis.
Data Analysis & Computing	$2,000	Software licenses (e.g., statistical, GIS), cloud storage, and external hard drive for raw data.
Publication & Dissemination	$3,000	Open-access journal fees, infographic/report design, and optional conference registration.
Indirect Costs / Admin / Flex	$20,000	Covers institutional overhead and ensures flexibility for scaling sample size or adding tests if needed.
Total	$100,000

6. References

Dutta S, Leff LG, Gangoda M, Zhao M, Mou X (2024) Geographical and environmental factors in pharmaceuticals and personal care products removal from drinking water plants. PLOS Water 3(10): e0000294. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000294
USEPA (2024). CHARACTERISTICS AND TREATMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS IN WASTEWATER. Characteristics and Treatment of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Wastewater
Choi, J. M., Manthapuri, V., Keenum, I., Brown, C. L., Xia, K., Chen, C., ... & Zhang, L. (2025). A machine learning framework to predict PPCP removal through various wastewater and water reuse treatment trains. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 11(2), 481-493.
Michelle Homan (2016). Evaluation of Exposure to and Human Health Risks from PCPPs in Drinking Water from Lake Erie.
Wellcare. PPCPs & DRINKING WATER.
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Leslie, H. A., & Quinn, B. (2019). Microplastics in drinking water: A review and assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 7, 69-75.
USEPA (2025). Drinking Water Regulations and Contaminants. Drinking Water Regulations and Contaminants | US EPA
USEPA (2025). Metals. Metals | US EPA
USEPA (2009). National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Table. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Table | Ground Water and Drinking Water | US EPA

Benchmarking Tap Water Safety in Florida: A Pilot Study Across Six Cities and University Campuses

Benchmarking Tap Water Safety in Florida: A Pilot Study Across Six Cities and University Campuses

Funding Progress

Peer Reviews

Related Funding

Request for Proposals - Comprehensive Analysis of Water Quality in Urban U.S.

Nonprofit Recipient

Topics

DOI