NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 - 2021: Health Effects Evaluation and Criteria For Chemicals in Drinking Water

NSF International Standard /
American National Standard /

National Standard of Canada
NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 - 2021

Health Effects Evaluation and Criteria
for Chemicals in Drinking Water
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR SALE

NSF International, an independent, not-for-profit,
nongovernmental organization, is dedicated to
being the leading global provider of public health
and safety-based risk management solutions
while serving the interests of all stakeholders.
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
This Standard is subject to revision.

Contact NSF to confirm this revision is current.
Users of this Standard may request clarifications and

interpretations, or propose revisions by contacting:
Chair, Joint Committees on Drinking Water Additives

c/o NSF International
789 North Dixboro Road, PO Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140 USA
Phone: (734) 769-8010 Fax: (734) 769-0109
Email: info@nsf.org
Web: <www.nsf.org>
NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
NSF International Standard /

American National Standard /
National Standard of Canada
for Drinking Water Additives –
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
Standard Developer
NSF International
ICS 13.060.20; 71.100.80
Designated as an ANSI Standard

April 9, 2021
American National Standards Institute
Designated as a National Standard of Canada

April 9, 2021
Standards Council of Canada
i
Prepared by
The NSF Joint Committees on Drinking Water Additives
Recommended for adoption by

The NSF Council of Public Health Consultants
Adopted by
NSF International
October 2018
Revised August 2019 Revised June 2021
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
Published by
NSF International
PO Box 130140, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140, USA
For ordering copies or for making inquiries with regard to this Standard, please reference the designation
“NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021.”
Cette Norme Nationale du Canada est disponible en versions Franҫaise et Anglaise.
Copyright 2021 NSF International
Previous editions © 2019, 2018
Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from
NSF International.
Printed in the United States of America.
ii
Disclaimers1
NSF International (NSF), in performing its functions in accordance with its objectives, does not assume or
undertake to discharge any responsibility of the manufacturer or any other party. The opinions and findings
of NSF represent its professional judgment. NSF shall not be responsible to anyone for the use of or reliance
upon this Standard by anyone. NSF shall not incur any obligation or liability for damages, including
consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the use, interpretation of, or reliance upon this
Standard. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to judge the suitability of the ANS/NSC for the
user’s purpose.
NSF Standards provide basic criteria to promote sanitation and protection of public health and the
environment. Provisions for mechanical and electrical safety have not been included in this Standard
because governmental agencies or other national standards-setting organizations provide safety
requirements.
Participation in NSF Standards development activities by regulatory agency representatives (federal, state,
and local) shall not constitute their agency's endorsement of NSF or any of its Standards.
Preference is given to the use of performance criteria measurable by examination or testing in

NSF Standards development when such performance criteria may reasonably be used in lieu of design,
materials, or construction criteria.
NOT FOR
The illustrations, if provided, are intended to assist in understanding their adjacent standard requirements.
However, the illustrations may not include all requirements for a specific product or unit, nor do they show
the only method of fabricating such arrangements. Such partial drawings shall not be used to justify
improper or incomplete design and construction.
DISTRIBUTION
At the time of this publication, examples of programs and processes were provided for general guidance.
This information is given for the convenience of users of this standard and does not constitute an
endorsement by NSF International. Equivalent programs and processes may be used.
OR SALE
Unless otherwise referenced, the annexes are not considered an integral part of NSF Standards. The
annexes are provided as general guidelines to the manufacturer, regulatory agency, user, or certifying
organization.
1 The information contained in this Disclaimer is not part of this American National Standard (ANS) and has not been
processed in accordance with ANSI’s requirements for an ANS. Therefore, this Disclaimer may contain material that
has not been subjected to public review or a consensus process. In addition, it does not contain requirements necessary
for conformance to the Standard.
iii
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
This page is intentionally left blank.
OR SALE
Contents
1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................... 1
3 Toxicology review and evaluation procedures ....................................................................................... 6

3.1 General requirements ................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Data requirements for published risk assessments ...................................................................... 6
3.3 Data requirements for new or updated risk assessments ............................................................ 8
3.4 Data requirements for evaluating short-term exposures ............................................................ 10
3.5 Risk estimation for published assessments ................................................................................ 10
3.6 Risk estimation using new and updated risk assessments ........................................................ 11
3.7 Risk estimation for short-term exposure (STEL calculation) ...................................................... 20
3.8 Guidelines for the use of read-across approaches to establishing drinking water criteria ......... 21
3.9 Key elements of a risk assessment for drinking water additive chemicals ................................. 27
4 Normative drinking water criteria .......................................................................................................... 41

4.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2 US EPA and Health Canada drinking water criteria ................................................................... 41
NOT FOR
4.3 Joint Peer Review Steering Committee (JPRSC) reconciled criteria ......................................... 41
4.4 Externally peer-reviewed drinking water criteria ......................................................................... 42
4.5 NSF International drinking water criteria (not externally peer-reviewed).................................... 42
4.6 Drinking water criteria based on US EPA guidance concentrations ........................................... 42
4.7 TOE chemical list ........................................................................................................................ 42
DISTRIBUTION
Informative Annex 1 References for toxicology review and evaluation procedures ............................... 181
OR SALE
v
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
Foreword2
The purpose of this Standard is to define the toxicological review and evaluation procedures for the
evaluation of substances imparted to drinking water through contact with drinking water system components
(and drinking water additives). It is intended to establish the human health risk, if any, of the substances
imparted to drinking water under the anticipated use conditions of the product. Table 4.1 contains evaluation
criteria for the determination of product compliance to the health effects requirements of drinking water
standards in which this Standard is cited, including NSF/ANSI/CAN 60 and NSF/ANSI/CAN 61. This
information was previously published under NSF/ANSI 60, Annexes A and C, and NSF/ANSI 61,
Annexes A and D. In 2018, NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 was developed to increase the accessibility of this
information and create a single source for the multiple drinking water standards that reference these criteria.
This edition of the Standard contains the following revision:
Issue 5
This revision adds a definition for reference concentration (RfC) in Section 2; updates the drinking water
intake rates under Section 3; and updates Table 4.1 pass/fail values for contaminants and revises footnote
7 to reference new optional lower lead Q value under NSF/ANSI/CAN 61.
This Standard was developed by the NSF Joint Committees on Drinking Water Additives using the
NOT FOR
consensus process described by the American National Standards Institute and the Standards Council of
Canada’s Requirements and Guidance. At the time of approval, the Joint Committees consisted of 9 public
health / regulatory, 20 industry, 10 product certifier / testing lab, and 8 user representatives.
This Standard has been designated as a National Standard of Canada (NSC) in compliance with
DISTRIBUTION
requirements and guidance set out by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).
This Standard and the accompanying text are intended for voluntary use by certifying organizations, regu-
latory agencies, and/or manufacturers as a basis of providing assurances that adequate health protection
exists for covered products.
OR SALE
Suggestions for improvement of this Standard are welcome. This Standard is maintained on a Continuous
Maintenance schedule and can be opened for comment at any time. Comments should be sent to:
Chair, Joint Committees on Drinking Water Additives at standards@nsf.org, or c/o NSF International,
Standards Department, PO Box 130140, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140, USA.
vii
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
SCC Foreword3
A National Standard of Canada is a standard developed by a Standards Council of Canada (SCC)

accredited standards development organization, in compliance with requirements and guidance set out by
the SCC. More information on National Standards of Canada can be found at <www.scc.ca>.
SCC is a Crown corporation within the portfolio of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED)
Canada. With the goal of enhancing Canada’s economic competitiveness and social well-being, SCC leads
and facilitates the development and use of national and international standards. SCC also coordinates
Canadian participation in standards development, and identifies strategies to advance Canadian
standardization efforts.
Accreditation services are provided by SCC to various customers, including product certifiers, testing
laboratories, and standards development organizations. A list of SCC programs and accredited bodies is
publicly available at <www.scc.ca>.
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
ix
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
NSF/ANSI/CAN Standard
for Drinking Water Additives –

1 General
1.1 Purpose
The following information defines the toxicological review and evaluation procedures for the evaluation of
substances imparted to drinking water through contact with drinking water system components (and
drinking water additives). It is intended to establish the human health risk, if any, of the substances imparted
to drinking water under the anticipated use conditions of the product. Table 4.1 of this Standard contains
NOT FOR
evaluation criteria that have been determined according to the requirements of this Standard.
2 Definitions
DISTRIBUTION
2.1 acute toxicity: Effects that occur immediately or develop rapidly after a single administration of a
substance. Acute toxicity may also be referred to as immediate toxicity (US EPA, 2011a).
2.2 allergic reaction: Adverse reaction to a chemical resulting from previous sensitization to that
chemical or to a structurally similar one (US EPA, 2011a).
OR SALE
2.3 analogue approach: The term analogue approach is used when read-across is employed between
a few, very structurally similar substances for which it is not possible to establish a trend or a regular pattern.
As a result of the structural similarity, a given (toxicological or other) property of one substance (the source)
is used to predict the same property for another substance (the target), for which this property is not
available. The outcome of a study conducted with the source substance is read-across for all investigated
parameters to the target substance. A worst-case approach may also be used (ECHA, 2017). Examples
have been published by the EC (2004, 2007).
2.4 benchmark dose (BMDL) (lower 95% confidence limit): The lower 95% confidence limit on the
dose that would be expected to produce a specified response in X% of a test population. This dose may be
expressed as BMDLX (adapted from Barnes et al., 1995). The lowest, relevant BMDLx from a dataset can
be considered a potential point-of-departure compared to available NOAEL and LOAEL values.
NOTE — For the purposes of this Standard, the BMDL shall be calculated at the 10% response level for
quantal data and one control standard deviation for continuous data, unless the data support a different
response level and justification is provided. For example, a frank effect, such as neurotoxicity or a fetal effect,
often warrant a lower benchmark response level, such as 5%.
2.5 chemical-specific adjustment factor (CSAF) approach: a method to incorporate quantitative,

chemical-specific data on interspecies differences or human variability in either toxicokinetics or
toxicodynamics (mode of action) into the risk assessment by modifying the relevant default UF
(i.e., interspecies or intraspecies UF) (IPCS, 2005 and US EPA, 2014a).
1
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
2.6 chronic effect: An effect that occurs as a result of repeated or long-term (chronic) exposures
(US EPA, 2011a).
2.7 chronic exposure: Repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than
approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used
laboratory animal species) (US EPA, 2011a).
2.8 chronic toxicity: The capability of a substance to cause adverse human health effects as a result of
chronic exposure (US EPA, 2011a).
2.9 computational models: Computerized predictive tools that are sometimes referred to as “in silico”
models (US EPA, 2012a).
2.10 continuous data: A measurement of effect that is expressed on a continuous scale, e.g., body weight
or serum enzyme levels (US EPA, 1995).
2.11 critical effect: The first adverse effect, or its known precursor, that occurs as the dose rate
increases (US EPA, 2011a). This can include a group of effects observed at the lowest dose among those
evaluated and the effect(s) are statistically- and/or biologically-significant compared to control groups.
2.12 data-derived extrapolation factor (DDEF): The process of replacing default toxicokinetics or
NOT FOR
toxicodynamics subfactors for interspecies or intraspecies (i.e., human variability) uncertainty by numerical
values, the magnitude of which are based on specific data (US EPA, 2014a). DDEFs can be derived for a
single agent or chemical, for a class of chemicals with shared chemical or toxicological properties, or for a
group of chemicals that share a mode or mechanism of action or TK characteristics.
DISTRIBUTION
2.13 dosimetric adjustment factor (DAF): A numerical value or animal / human dose metric ratio used
to extrapolate laboratory animal exposure concentrations to human equivalent exposure concentrations
(US EPA, 2011). DAF can be based on allometric scaling of body weight or other justified chemical-specific
data and is generally described as addressing interspecies differences in chemical disposition or
toxicokinetics.
OR SALE
2.14 ED10: Effective dose 10; a dose estimated to cause a 10% response in a test population
(US EPA, 1996).
2.15 flowing normalization conditions: Mathematical normalization procedures that reflect field
exposure scenarios for chemical contaminants from specific water distribution products under conditions of
continuous water flow, as distinguished from normalization procedures to account for static conditions.
These normalizations are described in NSF/ANSI/CAN 60 and NSF/ANSI/CAN 61.
2.16 genetic toxicity: Direct interaction with DNA that has the potential to cause heritable changes to
the cell.
2.17 human equivalent dose (HED): An estimate of the animal exposure of interest (e.g., NOAEL or
POD) translated to a biologically-motivated common scale for use in derivation of the RfD (US EPA, 2011b).
The preferred approach is to use a PBPK. If a PBPK model (or data to develop such model) is not available,
a CSAF or DAF supported by chemical-specific data should be considered. If inadequate data are available
to derive a CSAF or DAF, the default approach of interspecies allometric scaling of BW 3/4 power should
be used, when relevant.
2.18 irreversible toxicity: Toxic effects to a tissue that cannot be repaired (US EPA, 2011a).
2.19 LD50: The dose of a chemical taken by mouth or absorbed by the skin which is expected to cause
death in 50% of the treated test animals.
2
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
2.20 LED10: Lowest effective dose 10; the lower 95% confidence limit on a dose estimated to cause a
10% response in a test population (US EPA, 1996).
2.21 local toxicity: Effects that occur at the portal of entry or site of first contact between the biological
system and the toxicant (US EPA, 2011a).
2.22 lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL): The lowest exposure concentration at which
statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of effects are observed between the
exposed population and its appropriate control group (US EPA, 2011a).
2.23 margin of exposure (MOE): The LED10 or other POD, such as a NOAEL, divided by the
environmental dose of interest (US EPA, 1996a).
2.24 maximum contaminant level (MCL): The maximum concentration of a regulated contaminant that
is permitted in a public drinking water supply, as defined under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
NOTE — If the manufacturer requests review to relevant alternate regulatory requirements, the certifying
agency can consider alternative regulatory levels, e.g., Canadian maximum acceptable concentrations
(MACs).
2.25 mode of action: Understanding how chemicals perturb normal biological function; the key steps in
NOT FOR
the toxic response after chemical interaction at the target site that is responsible for the physiological
outcome or pathology of the chemical (US EPA, 2012a).
2.26 no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL): An exposure concentration at which no statistically
or biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effects are observed between
DISTRIBUTION
an exposed population and its appropriate control. Some physiological effects may be produced at this
concentration, but they are not considered as toxicologically significant or adverse, or as precursors to
adverse effects (US EPA, 2011a).
2.27 nonregulated substance: A substance for which a statutory concentration limit does not exist.
OR SALE
2.28 peer review: A documented critical review of a scientific or technical work product conducted by
qualified individuals or organizations who are independent of those who performed the work, but who are
collectively equivalent or superior in technical expertise to those who performed the work. It includes an
in-depth assessment of the assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations,
methodology, acceptance criteria, and conclusions pertaining to the work product and the documentation
that supports the conclusions reached in the report. Peer review is intended to ensure that the work product
is technically adequate, competently performed, properly documented, and satisfies established
requirements (US EPA, 2015b).
2.29 physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model (PBPK): A model that estimates the dose to a
target tissue or organ by taking into account the route of exposure, rate of absorption into the body,
distribution among target organs and tissues, metabolism, and excretion (US EPA, 2011a).
2.30 point of departure (POD): A data point or an estimated point that can be considered to be in the
range of observation. The standard POD preferably is the LED10, which is the lower 95% confidence limit
on a dose associated with 10% extra risk (adapted from Barnes et al., 1995). If a LED10, such as a BMDL10
is not available or cannot be estimated, a NOAEL or LOAEL can be considered.
2.31 qualitative risk assessment: An estimation of the risk associated with the exposure to a
substance using a nonquantitative methodology.
2.32 quantal data: A dichotomous measure of effect; each animal is scored “normal” or “affected” and
the measure of effect is the proportion of scored animals that are affected (US EPA, 1995).
3
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
2.33 quantitative risk assessment: An estimation of the risk associated with the exposure to a
substance using a methodology that employs evaluation of dose response relationships.
2.34 range of extrapolation: Doses that are outside of the range of empirical observation in animal
studies, human studies, or both (adapted from Barnes et al., 1995).
2.35 range of observation: Doses that are within the range of empirical observation in animal studies,
human studies, or both (adapted from Barnes et al., 1995).
2.36 read-across: Technique of filling data gaps. To “read-across” is to apply data from a tested
chemical (i.e., analog) for a particular property or effect (cancer, reproductive toxicity, etc.) to a similar
untested chemical. The read-across technique is often applied within groups of similar chemicals
assembled for assessment using either analog approach (grouping based on a very limited number of
chemicals) or category approach (grouping based on a larger number of chemicals) (US EPA, 2012a).
2.37 reference concentration (RfC): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups)
that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime (US EPA, 2011b).
2.38 reference dose (RfD): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning approximately an order of
magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be
NOT FOR
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime (US EPA, 2011).
2.39 regulated substance: A substance for which a quantitative human health risk assessment has
been performed and utilized in promulgation of a statutory concentration limit for drinking water.
DISTRIBUTION
2.40 relative source contribution (RSC): Estimation of the relative contribution of the substance from
the media of interest (e.g., ingested tap water) to the total exposure from all sources, including air and food,
for the purpose of calculating evaluation criteria for noncarcinogens (US EPA, 1991). The contribution of
tap water from preparation of food with tap water that is not ultimately ingested with the food should be
considered when determining the RSC.
OR SALE
2.41 reversible toxicity: Toxic effects that can be repaired, usually by a specific tissue’s ability to
regenerate or mend itself after chemical exposure (US EPA, 2011a) and that are applicable primarily for
short-term exposure scenarios.
2.42 short-term exposure: Repeated exposure duration greater than 24 hours up to 30 days
(US EPA, 2011a).
2.43 short-term exposure level (STEL): A maximum concentration of a contaminant that is permitted
in drinking water for an acute exposure calculated in accordance with Section 3 of this Standard.
2.44 single product allowable concentration (SPAC): The maximum concentration of a contaminant
in drinking water that a single product is allowed to contribute as defined by Section 3 of this Standard.
2.45 source substance: In a read-across approach, a toxicity endpoint for one substance (target
substance) of unknown toxicity is predicted based on empirical data for the same endpoint from (an)other
substance(s), (source substance(s)). Consequently, the read-across approach is considered property
(i.e., endpoint-specific (adapted from ECHA, 2017)). Synonyms: analog or surrogate substance.
2.46 static normalization conditions: Mathematical normalization procedures that reflect field
exposure scenarios for chemical contaminants from specific water distribution products that can be subject
to static periods (i.e., nonflowing) of water flow, as distinguished from normalization procedures to account
for flowing conditions. These normalizations are described in NSF/ANSI/CAN 60 and NSF/ANSI/CAN 61.
4
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
2.47 subchronic exposure: Repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than
30 days, up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately
90 days in typically used laboratory animal species) (US EPA, 2011a).
2.48 systemic toxicity: Effects that are elicited after absorption and distribution of a toxicant from its
entry point to its target tissue (US EPA, 2011a).
2.49 target substance: In a read-across approach, a toxicity endpoint for one substance (target
substance) of unknown toxicity is predicted based on empirical data for the same endpoint from (an)other
substance(s), (source substance(s)). Consequently, the read-across approach is considered property
(i.e., endpoint)-specific (adapted from ECHA, 2017).
2.50 threshold of toxicological concern (TTC): A concept that refers to the establishment of tiered
levels of exposure for chemicals, based on the presence or absence of chemical functional groups below
which there would be no appreciable risk to human health. The concept proposes that these low levels of
exposure with negligible risk can be identified for many chemicals, including those of unknown toxicity,
based on knowledge of their chemical structures (Kroes et al., 2004). The TTC concept has been recently
reviewed and updated by EFSA/WHO (2016).
2.51 total allowable concentration (TAC): The maximum concentration of a nonregulated contaminant
allowed in a public drinking water supply as defined by Section 3 of this Standard.
NOT FOR
2.52 toxicodynamics: Variations in the inherent sensitivity of a species or individual to
chemical-induced toxicity, resulting from differences in host factors that influence the toxic response of a
target organ to a specified dose (TERA, 1996).
DISTRIBUTION
2.53 toxicokinetics: Variations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of a
compound that account for differences in the amount of parent compound or active metabolite(s) available
to a target organ (TERA, 1996).
2.54 treatment technique: A technology or one or more procedures used to control the concentration
OR SALE
of a substance in a drinking water supply when it is neither technically nor economically feasible to ascertain
the concentration of the substance (US Safe Drinking Water Act, 1996).
2.55 uncertainty factor (UF): One of several, generally 10-fold, default factors used in operationally
deriving the RfD and RfC from experimental data. The factors are intended to account for (1) variation in
susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-individual or intraspecies variability);
(2) uncertainty in extrapolating animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies uncertainty); (3) uncertainty in
extrapolating from data obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from
subchronic to chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating from a LOAEL rather than from a NOAEL;
and (5) uncertainty associated with extrapolation when the database is incomplete (US EPA, 2011b).
2.56 use of models: A mathematical function with parameters that can be adjusted so that the function
closely describes a set of empirical data. A mathematical or mechanistic model is usually based on
biological or physical mechanisms and has model parameters that have real-world interpretations.
Statistical or empirical models are curve-fitted to data where the math function used is selected for its
numerical properties and accuracy. Extrapolation from mechanistic models (e.g., pharmacokinetic
equations) usually carries higher confidence than extrapolation using empirical models (e.g., logit)
(US EPA, 1994).
2.57 weight-of-evidence: The extent to which the available biomedical data support the hypothesis that
a substance causes cancer or other toxic effects in humans (adapted from US EPA, 2011a).
5
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3 Toxicology review and evaluation procedures

(previously Annex A of NSF/ANSI 60 and 61)
3.1 General requirements
The following general procedure shall be used to evaluate drinking water substances under this Standard:
a) A determination shall be made as to whether a published (publicly available in printed or electronic

format) and peer reviewed quantitative risk assessment for the substance is available.
b) When a quantitative risk assessment is available, the reviewer shall determine whether the
assessment is currently used in the promulgation of a drinking water regulation or published health
advisory for the substance (see the requirements of Section 3.2):
— if the assessment is used in the promulgation of a drinking water regulation, the SPAC shall be
derived from the regulatory value(s); or
— if the assessment is not the basis of a drinking water regulation, the assessment and its
corresponding RfD shall be reviewed for its appropriateness in evaluating the human health risk of
the drinking water substance.
NOT FOR
NOTE — When reviewing an assessment used in the promulgation of a drinking water regulation, it
is recommended that the regulatory authority be contacted to verify the currency of the assessment
under consideration.
c) If a published and peer reviewed quantitative risk assessment is not currently available for the
DISTRIBUTION
substance, the TAC and SPAC shall be derived after review of the available toxicology data for the
substance (see Section 3.3). The quality and quantity of toxicity data available for the substance shall
determine whether the evaluation is performed using a qualitative risk assessment approach (see
Section 3.3.2) or a quantitative risk assessment approach (see Section 3.3.3);
OR SALE
— when the data requirements for qualitative risk assessment are satisfied (see Section 3.3.2 and
Table 3.1), a qualitative risk assessment shall be performed according to Section 3.6; or
— when the data requirements for quantitative risk assessment are satisfied (see Section 3.3.3
and Table 3.2), a quantitative risk assessment shall be performed according to Section 3.6.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the toxicity data review requirements of this Standard.
3.2 Data requirements for published risk assessments
3.2.1 General requirements
Evaluation of all published risk assessments shall include review of the written risk assessment document
and a determination of whether additional toxicity data exist that were not considered in the assessment. If
additional toxicity data are identified that were not considered in the risk assessment, the risk assessment
shall be updated in accordance with Section 3.3.
The following shall be documented when utilizing an existing risk assessment:
— the source of the risk assessment;
— identification and discussion of any data or current risk assessment methodology not addressed by
the assessment; and
6
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— comparison and contrast of the existing risk assessment to the requirements of Section 3.3 with
respect to selection of UFs or other assumptions.
3.2.2 Substances regulated by US EPA or Health Canada
If a substance is regulated under the US EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and the
US EPA has finalized a MCL or other means of regulation such as a treatment technique (see Section
2.53), no additional collection of toxicological data shall be required prior to performance of the risk
estimation. Where Health Canada has finalized a maximum allowable concentration (MAC), no additional
toxicological evaluation shall be required prior to performance of the risk estimation. Refer to Section 3.5.1
SPAC calculation for regulated substances. Table 4.1 contains normative drinking water criteria which
include regulatory values (MCL or MAC) and their corresponding SPACs, as indicated in the the “source of
supporting documentation” column in Table 4.1. This list includes consensus evaluation criteria for those
substances that are regulated by both countries.
3.2.3 Substances regulated by other agencies
If a substance is regulated by agencies including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 21 Food and Drug Regulations), or state, national, or international regulatory
bodies other than those specified in Section 3.2.2, the relevance of the regulation to drinking water shall be
evaluated. This evaluation shall include a review of the quantitative risk assessment that supports the
NOT FOR
regulation, and a determination of whether additional toxicity data exist that have not been considered in
the current assessment. No additional collection of toxicological data shall be required when the regulation
provides sufficient information for performance of the risk estimation (see Section 3.5.1 SPAC calculation
for regulated substances). If additional toxicity data are identified which were not considered in the current
risk assessment, a revised risk assessment incorporating those data shall be performed as indicated in
DISTRIBUTION
Sections 3.3 and 3.6.
3.2.4 Evaluation of multiple published risk assessments
When multiple published assessments are available for a specific substance, the available assessments
OR SALE
shall be reviewed and a rationale shall be provided for the selection of the assessment considered to be
the most appropriate for the evaluation of human exposure through drinking water. Factors used to
determine the appropriate assessment shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
— completeness and currency of the data review of each assessment;

— technical competence of the organization(s) which sponsored the assessment; and
— species and route(s) of exposure for which the assessment was performed.
When multiple published risk assessments are reviewed and are determined to be of equivalent quality, the
following hierarchy shall be used to select the appropriate assessment, based on sponsoring organization:
— US EPA;
— Health Canada;
— international bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Programme
on Chemical Safety (IPCS);
— European bodies such as the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) and Kiwa; and
— entities such as other federal or state regulatory agencies, private corporations, industry
associations, or individuals.
7
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.3 Data requirements for new or updated risk assessments
3.3.1 General requirements
When considering the types of data required for new or updated risk assessments, articulation of the
problem formulation may inform the approach to be utilized for the risk assessment (US EPA, 2014b).
For each substance requiring a new or updated risk assessment, toxicity data to be considered shall
include, but not be limited to, assays of genetic toxicity, acute toxicity (1- to 14-day exposure), short-term
toxicity (14- to 28-day exposure), subchronic toxicity (90-day exposure), reproductive toxicity,
developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, chronic toxicity (including carcinogenicity), and
human data (clinical, epidemiological, or occupational) when available. To more fully understand the toxic
potential of the substance, supplemental studies shall be reviewed, including, but not limited to, mode or
mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, sensitization, endocrine disruption, and other
endpoints, as well as studies using routes of exposure other than ingestion. Structure activity relationships,
physical and chemical properties, and any other chemical-specific information relevant to the risk
assessment shall also be reviewed.
Toxicity testing shall be performed in accordance with the most recent adopted toxicity testing protocols
such as those described by the Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
the US EPA, and the US FDA. All studies shall be reviewed for compliance with Good Laboratory Practice
NOT FOR
(21 CFR, Part 58 / 40 CFR Part 792).
NOTE — Review of the study according to the approach suggested in Klimisch, et al., 1997, may also be used
to determine the quality of reported data.
DISTRIBUTION
A key aspect of the problem formulation is to describe the intention of the risk assessment as well as the
approach to be utilized (US EPA, 2014b). For this Standard, intentions of the risk assessment may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
⎯ preparation of a new drinking water risk assessment where no other toxicity reviews or prior risk
OR SALE
assessments have been identified in the available scientific literature;
⎯ preparation of a new drinking water risk assessment with existing toxicity review(s) available; or
⎯ preparation of an updated drinking water assessment to incorporate new data or methodology since
completion of the prior risk assessment.
Primary literature references shall be obtained and reviewed for critical studies whenever possible;
however, toxicology data obtained from secondary sources may be relied upon in either new or updated
risk assessments if the primary literature reference is unavailable. For supporting toxicity data outside of
identified critical studies, the utilization of toxicity data derived from existing secondary sources may be
considered appropriate.
For the purpose of this Standard, a secondary source may be defined as a document or database which
contains a summary of factual toxicity data from a published or nonpublished primary study. Examples of
secondary sources may include, but are not limited to, organizational publications (e.g., US EPA,
Health Canada, ATSDR, etc.), toxicity review articles in which relevant toxicity data are summarized, or
toxicity data obtained from online toxicity databases (e.g., European Chemicals Agency).
Toxicology data obtained from the secondary source shall be reviewed to assess both the quality of the
secondary source as well as quality of the primary study summarized within the secondary source. In both
cases, professional judgement is required to determine if there is sufficient information available to assess
the adequacy of the method and quality of the study, and if the data are sufficiently robust to allow an
independent characterization of hazard and risk for a given endpoint. Factors in the assessment of the
secondary source may include, but are not limited to, whether that secondary source has been
8
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
peer-reviewed (preference should be given to authoritative or regulatory bodies such as defined in

Section 3.2.4), knowledge expert qualifications of the investigator or reviewer, and general completeness
of the primary study summary. The quality of the primary study itself as cited within the secondary source
shall be reviewed by assessing the available study procedural details as compared to the most recently
adopted toxicity testing protocols (as described above) or by using the approach as suggested by Klimisch
et al. (1997). If the secondary source has assigned a reliability rating (e.g., a Klimisch score) to the primary
study, such reliabilty rating may also be considered in assessing the quality of the primary study data.
The potential limitations of toxicology data obtained from secondary sources shall be described within the
risk assessment.
NOTE — Citation of secondary sources should be in the following form: (primary source, year; as cited by
secondary source, year).
A weight-of-evidence approach shall be employed in evaluating the results of the available toxicity data.
This approach shall include considering the likelihood of hazard to human health and the conditions under
which such hazard may be expressed. A characterization of the expression of such effects shall also be
included, as well as the consideration of the substance’s apparent mode of action. The quality and quantity
of toxicity data available for the substance shall determine whether the evaluation is performed using a
qualitative risk assessment approach (see Section 3.2.2) or a quantitative risk assessment approach
(see Section 3.2.3).
NOT FOR
3.3.2 Data requirements for qualitative risk assessment
Toxicity testing requirements for the qualitative risk assessment procedure are defined in Table 3.1.
A minimum data set consisting of a gene mutation assay and a chromosomal aberration assay shall be
DISTRIBUTION
required for the performance of a qualitative risk assessment. Modifications in the specified toxicity testing
requirements (inclusions or exclusions) shall be permitted when well supported by peer reviewed scientific
judgment and rationale.
NOTE — Modifications may include, but are not limited to, the following types of considerations: alternate
OR SALE
assays of genetic toxicity and supplemental toxicity studies other than those specified.
Required studies and available supplemental studies shall be reviewed in order to perform a qualitative risk
estimation in accordance with Section 3.6.2.
3.3.3 Data requirements for quantitative risk assessment
Toxicity testing requirements for the quantitative risk assessment procedure are defined in Table 3.2.
A minimum data set consisting of a gene mutation assay, a chromosomal aberration assay, and a
subchronic toxicity study shall be required for the performance of a quantitative risk assessment. The
required studies and preferred criteria are defined in Table 3.2. Modifications to the minimum data set shall
be permitted when well-supported by peer reviewed scientific judgment and rationale.
NOTE — Modifications may include, but are not limited, to acceptance of studies using alternate routes of
exposure, alternate assays of genetic toxicity, and supplemental toxicity studies other than those specified.
Required studies, additional studies, and available supplemental studies shall be reviewed in order to
perform a quantitative risk estimation in accordance with Section 3.6.3.
Additional studies for the evaluation of reproductive and developmental toxicity (as specified in Table 3.2)
shall be required to be reviewed when:
— results of the required minimum data set studies and any supplemental studies indicate toxicity to
the reproductive or endocrine tissues of one or both sexes of experimental animals; or
9
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— the compound under evaluation is closely related to a known reproductive or developmental

toxicant.
3.4 Data requirements for evaluating short-term exposures
Extractants from products used in contact with drinking water may be elevated initially, but rapidly decline
with continued product contact with water. Examples include, but are not limited to, solvent-containing
coatings and solvent cements. Short-term exposure paradigms, appropriate for potentially high initial
substance concentrations, shall be used to evaluate potential acute risk to human health of short-term
exposures. The short-term exposure period shall be defined as the first 14 days of in-service life of the
product.
Sound scientific judgment shall be used to determine whether calculation of a STEL is appropriate for a
given contaminant. The NOAEL or LOAEL for the critical short-term hazard of the substance shall be
identified. The following types of studies shall be considered for identification of short-term hazard:
— short-term (less than 90-day duration) toxicity study in rodents or other appropriate species with a
minimum 14-day post-treatment observation period, clinical observations, hematology and clinical
chemistry, and gross pathology (preferably an oral study in rodents);
— reproduction or developmental assays (for substances having these endpoints as the critical
NOT FOR
effects); or
— subchronic 90-day study in rodents or other species (preferably an oral study in rats).
The critical study shall be used to calculate a STEL in accordance with Section 3.7.
DISTRIBUTION
Selection of UFs for calculation of a STEL shall consider the quality and completeness of the database for
assessing potential short-term effects. Selection of UFs shall also consider data that quantify interspecies
and intraspecies variations. Other parameters that shall be considered in the determination of a STEL
include identification of any sensitive subpopulations, the potential for adverse taste and odor, and solubility
OR SALE
limitations at the calculated STEL. The STEL shall be calculated using assumptions to protect for a child’s
exposure to the contaminant in the absence of data that demonstrate, or a different life stage, such as
infants or pregnancy, adults are more sensitive than children. In the absence of appropriate data to calculate
a STEL, see Section 3.6.1.2. If multiple short-term critical effects (i.e., points-of-departure) exist relative to
different life-stages, multiple STEL derivations reflecting the relevant point(s)-of-departure and their
associated life-stage specific exposure assumptions should be included, with the lowest STEL, or that most
supported by available evidence, selected. Note that selection of UFs is specific for each point-of-departure.
STEL shall not exceed the TAC for nonmetallic contaminants regulated by the US EPA and established by
Health Canada.
3.5 Risk estimation for published assessments
Calculation of the SPAC is intended to account for the potential contribution of a single substance by
multiple products or materials in the drinking water treatment and distribution system. In any given drinking
water treatment and distribution system, a variety of products and materials may be added to or contact the
treated water prior to ingestion. The SPAC calculation is intended to ensure that the total contribution of a
single substance from all potential sources in the drinking water treatment and distribution system does not
exceed its acceptable concentration.
3.5.1 SPAC calculation for regulated substances
To calculate the SPAC, an estimate of the number of potential sources of the substance from all products
in the drinking water treatment and distribution system shall be determined. The SPAC shall be calculated
as follows:
10
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
[promulgated regulatory value ( mg⁄L )]

SPAC (mg⁄L) =
[estimated number of drinking water sources]
If available, the unrounded estimated risk estimation that the promulgated regulatory value is based on
shall be used in the calculation of the SPAC. In the absence of specific data regarding the number of
potential sources of the substance in the drinking water treatment and distribution system, the SPAC shall
be calculated as 10% of the promulgated regulatory value. The calculated SPAC shall be rounded to one
significant figure, unless it is based on a regulatory value with more than one significant figure. In that case
the SPAC shall be rounded to the same number of significant figures as the regulatory value.
3.5.2 SPAC calculation for other published risk assessments
Review of the risk assessment shall include evaluation of the risk estimation, if one is provided. If the
existing risk estimation has been performed in a manner consistent with the procedures in Section 3.6.3 for
noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic endpoints, the SPAC shall be calculated as follows:
[existing risk estimation ( mg⁄L )]

SPAC (mg⁄L) =
The unrounded value of the estimated risk estimation shall be used in the calculation of the SPAC. In the
absence of specific data regarding the number of potential sources of the substance in the drinking water
NOT FOR
treatment and distribution system, the SPAC shall be calculated as 10% of the existing risk estimation. The
calculated SPAC shall be rounded to one significant figure.
If the existing risk estimation is not consistent with Section 3.6.3, or a risk estimation is not provided, a TAC
and SPAC shall be calculated for the substance according to the procedures in Section 3.6.3.
3.6
DISTRIBUTION
Risk estimation using new and updated risk assessments
The method of risk estimation used for new and updated risk assessments shall be determined by the
quantity and quality of toxicity data identified for the contaminant of concern (see Section 3.3). When
OR SALE
available toxicity data are insufficient to perform the qualitative or quantitative risk assessments, or when
toxicity data are available, but the normalized contaminant concentration does not exceed the applicable
threshold of evaluation (TOE) value, a TOE shall be determined for the substance according to
Section 3.6.1, if applicable. For all other data sets, the risk estimation shall be performed according to
Section 3.6.2 or 3.6.3.
3.6.1 Threshold of evaluation (TOE)
The following thresholds of evaluation shall be considered when available toxicity data do not meet the
minimum requirements to perform a risk estimation using either the qualitative or quantitative approaches.
Application of the TOE shall also be considered for the evaluation of normalized contaminant concentrations
which do not have existing risk assessments, and which do not exceed the defined TOE concentrations. In
this case, a qualitative review of the available data shall be performed to determine whether adverse health
effects can result at the TOE exposure concentrations defined in Section 3.6.1.1.
3.6.1.1 TOE for chronic exposure
Performance of a risk assessment shall not be required for an individual substance having a normalized
concentration less than or equal to the following TOE values:
— static normalization conditions:
— toxicity testing shall not be required for an individual substance having a normalized
concentration less than or equal to the TOE value of 3 μg/L.
11
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— flowing normalization conditions:
— toxicity testing shall not be required for an individual substance having a normalized
concentration less than or equal to the TOE value of 0.3 μg/L.
These TOE values shall not apply to any substance for which available toxicity data and sound scientific
judgment such as structure activity relationships indicate that an adverse health effect may result at these
exposure concentrations.
3.6.1.2 TOE for short-term exposure
If an appropriate short-term toxic effect is not identified by the available data, the initial (Day 1) laboratory
concentration shall not exceed 10 μg/L. This TOE value shall not apply to any chemical for which available
toxicity data and sound scientific judgment, such as structure activity relationships, indicate that an adverse
health effect can result at the 10 μg/L concentration upon short-term exposure to the chemical.
3.6.2 TAC determination for qualitative risk assessment
TACs for qualitative risk assessments shall be determined as indicated in Table 3.3.
3.6.3 TAC calculation for quantitative risk assessment
NOT FOR
The procedure used to calculate the TAC for a new risk assessment (including qualitative assessments that
are updated upon generation of new data) shall be determined by the toxicologic endpoint identified as the
critical effect (see Section 2.11). For a substance having a noncarcinogenic endpoint, a TAC shall be
calculated according to Section 3.6.3.1. For a substance having carcinogenic potential, a TAC shall be
DISTRIBUTION
calculated according to Section 3.6.3.2.
The minimum data set for the quantitative risk assessment (as defined in Section 3.3.3 and Table 3.2) shall
first be evaluated for genotoxic potential according to the requirements of Table 3.3. Based on the review
of genotoxic potential, the need for supplemental studies or chronic toxicity and carcinogenesis data shall
OR SALE
be determined.
3.6.3.1 Assessment of noncarcinogenic endpoints
For noncarcinogenic endpoints, the TAC shall be calculated using either the NOAEL/LOAEL procedure
outlined in Section 3.6.3.1.2, or the benchmark dose (BMDL) procedure outlined in Section 3.6.3.1.3, as
appropriate. The rationale for the selection of the procedure shall be provided in the assessment.
NOTE — Selection of the appropriate TAC calculation procedure will depend on the characteristics of the data
set identified for the substance. Simple data sets consisting of a small number of studies may be best
evaluated using the procedure in Section 3.6.3.1.2. Complex data sets consisting of several studies, or which
involve reproduction or developmental endpoints may be best evaluated using the BMDL procedure in
Section 3.6.3.1.3. The appropriateness of the fit of the data to the BMDL shall also be considered.
3.6.3.1.1 Calculation of HEDs
Selected NOAEL/LOAEL/BMDL values from animal studies shall be converted to HEDs using a
cross-species body weight scaling approach to account for interspecies differences in toxicokinetics (based
on US EPA, 2011c). This is the current default method to convert data between animal and human species
for both cancer and noncancer endpoints, and should be used when physiologically-based toxicokinetics
(PBPK) modeling is not feasible and no chemical-specific interspecies adjustment factors (e.g., CSAFs,
DDEFs) data on interspecies weight conversion are available (US EPA, 2014a). When benchmark dose
modeling is to be used, the HEDs shall be calculated, using study-specific body weight data when available,
prior to modeling to determine the BMDL.
12
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
The HED conversion is conducted by use of body weight (BW) 3/4 scaling and the reduction of the overall
interspecies UF default value from 10 to 3 to account for remaining uncertainty in toxicodynamics (see
Section 3.6.3.1.3.2):
HED = Critical Dosea × (BWa /BWh)1/4
Where:
HED = Human equivalent dose of the critical effect dose level (i.e., NOAEL h, LOAELh or BMDLh)
Critical Dosea = Effect dose level established in animal studies (i.e., NOAELa, LOAELa or BMDLa)
BWh = Average human body weight, which is 80 kg by default (US EPA, 2011a, 2015a)
BWa = Mean animal body weight, which is either reported in the animal studies or the default value
specified by the US EPA (1988)
NOTE — There are limitations to the HED conversion approach. Under the following circumstances,
the default BW3/4 scaling approach is not applicable (US EPA, 2011c), and use of the
NOAEL/LOAEL/BMDL in combination with an UF of 10 for interspecies extrapolation (in addition to
other requisite UFs) should be used:
NOT FOR
⎯ when metabolic pathways are saturated;
⎯ when toxicity is a consequence of exposure to a very reactive parent compound or

metabolite that is not removed from the site of formation by biological processes, but chemically
reacts with cellular constituents;
DISTRIBUTION
⎯ when toxicity is a caused by direct action of the chemical or metabolites on tissues of the
gastrointestinal tract;
⎯ when scaling to the body weights of young infants and children (< 6 months old) to derive
OR SALE
an acute RfD or short-term guidance value intended to apply to a population that includes young
infants and children, due to the comparatively slower clearance of xenobiotics during this period
and limited available toxicokinetics data;4 and
⎯ under conditions of an acute exposure with the focus of the occurrence of immediate and
severe or lethal effects, unless the operative physiological processes are comparable between
acute and chronic exposure scenarios.
3.6.3.1.2 NOAEL or LOAEL approach
The substance data set shall be reviewed in its entirety, and the highest NOAELHED for the most appropriate
test species, relevant route of exposure, study duration, mechanism, tissue response, and toxicological
endpoint shall be identified. If a NOAELHED cannot be clearly defined from the data, the lowest LOAELHED
for the most appropriate test species, relevant route of exposure, and toxicological endpoint shall be utilized.
The general procedure for calculating the TAC using this approach is as follows:
a) Determine the critical study and effect from which the NOAELHED or LOAELHED will be identified
according to the following hierarchy (US EPA, 1993 and Dourson et al., 1994):
4 In
instances when extrapolation from a young laboratory animal to a young human are desirable; key developmental
processes must be matched in a species-dependent manner (US EPA, 2011c).
13
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— adequate studies in humans;
— adequate studies in animal models most biologically relevant to humans (e.g., primates), or
that demonstrate similar pharmacokinetics to humans;
— adequate studies in the most sensitive animal species (the species showing an adverse effect
at the lowest administered dose using an appropriate vehicle, an adequate study duration, and a
relevant route of exposure); and
— effects that are biologically relevant to humans.
b) Calculate the RfD according to the following equation (based on US EPA, 1993):
[NOAELHED or LOAELHED(mg⁄kg⁄d)] [number of days dosed per week]

RfD (mg⁄kg⁄d) = ×
UF 7d
NOTE — When other than daily dosing was used in the critical study, the RfD calculation shall be adjusted
to reflect a daily dosing schedule.
c) Calculate the TAC based on the RfD with adjustment for significant contribution(s) of the substance
from sources other than drinking water according to the following equation:
NOT FOR
RfD (mg/kg-d) × RSC
TAC (mg⁄L) =
IRADULT (L/kg-d)
The calculated TAC shall be rounded to one significant figure.
DISTRIBUTION
Where:
NOAELHED = Highest NOAEL for the critical effect in the most appropriate species identified
after review of data set; if a NOAELHED is not defined, the LOAELHED shall be used with a
OR SALE
corresponding adjustment in the UF (see Table 3.4)
UF = Total uncertainty factor (see Table 3.4)
RSC = Relative source contribution: Apply the US EPA (2000) Exposure Decision Tree to
determine the RSC. If the data are available to quantify the relative drinking water contribution
of a substance, a chemical-specific RSC shall be calculated. In the absence of data to
determine significant contribution(s) of the substance from other sources, a default drinking
water contribution of 20% shall be applied (US EPA, 1991). The calculation to determine the
RSC considering all sources can be figured as follows:
Exposure water
RSC = × 100%
Exposure sum of all pathways
IRADULT = Adult ingestion rate of 0.034 L/kg-d as indicated in the US EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook (US EPA, 2019).5
3.6.3.1.3 Benchmark dose approach
The BMDL for the substance shall be calculated by modeling the substance’s dose response curve for the
critical effect in the region of observed responses. The benchmark response (BMR) concentration shall be
5 Based on 90th percentile intake, consumers only, direct and indirect community water; NHANES 2005-2010;
Table 3-21; rounded (US EPA, 2019).
14
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
determined by whether the critical response is a continuous endpoint measurement or a quantal endpoint
measurement. The BMR shall be calculated at the 10% response level, as appropriate.
The general procedure for calculating the TAC using the BMDL is as follows:
a) Calculate the RfD according to the following equation:
BMDL HED ( mg⁄kg⁄d ) [number of days dosed per week]

RfD (mg⁄kg⁄d) = ×
UF 7d
NOTE — When other than daily dosing was used in the critical study, the RfD calculation shall be adjusted
to reflect a daily dosing schedule.
b) Calculate the TAC based on the RfD with adjustment for significant contribution(s) of the substance
from sources other than water according to the following equation:
RfD (mg/kg-d) × RSC

TAC (mg/L) =
IRADULT (L/kg-d)
The calculated TAC shall be rounded to one significant figure.
NOT FOR
Where:
BMDLHED = The lower confidence limit on the dose that produces a specified magnitude of
change (e.g., 10%) in a specified adverse response (BMDL10).
DISTRIBUTION
UF = Total uncertainty factor (see Table 3.4)
RSC = Relative source contribution: Apply the US EPA (2000) Exposure Decision Tree to
determine the RSC. If the data are available to quantify the relative drinking water contribution
of a substance, a chemical-specific RSC shall be calculated. In the absence of data to
OR SALE
determine significant contribution(s) of the substance from other sources, a default drinking
water contribution of 20% shall be applied (US EPA, 1991). The calculation to determine the
RSC considering all sources can be figured as follows:
Exposure water
RSC = × 100%
Exposure sum of all pathways
IRADULT = Adult ingestion rate of 0.034 L/kg-d as indicated in the US EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook (US EPA, 2019).6
3.6.3.1.4 Selection of uncertainty factors (UFs)
UFs used for the risk estimation shall include consideration of the areas of uncertainty listed in Table 3.4.
A default value of 10 shall be used for individual areas of uncertainty when adequate data are not available
to support a data-derived UF. Selection of the values of each UF shall consider the following criteria
(adapted from Dourson et al., 1996).7
6Based on 90th percentile intake, consumers only, direct and indirect community water; NHANES 2005-2010; Table
3-21; rounded (US EPA, 2019).
7 The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 reemphasized the review and evaluation of toxicity data for the
protection of children’s health. The US EPA has been very responsive to this initiative and published a document
outlining the use of an UF for children’s protection and other database deficiencies (US EPA, 2002b). Currently, this
factor is applied to pesticide evaluations only. In addition, publications by Renwick (1993) and the International
Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) (2005) suggest the use of specific data in lieu of default values for UFs. The
use of data-derived UFs, or judgment, as replacements to default values of 10-fold for each area of uncertainty is
15
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.6.3.1.4.1 Human variability
Selection of the human variability factor shall be based on the availability of data that identify sensitive
subpopulations of humans. If sufficient data are available to quantitate the toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic
variability of humans (see Sections 2.52 and 2.51), factor values of 3, 1, or a value determined from the
data shall be considered. In the absence of these data, the default value of 10 shall be used.
3.6.3.1.4.2 Interspecies variability
Selection of the interspecies variability factor shall be based on the availability of data that allow for a
quantitative extrapolation of animal dose to the equivalent human dose for effects of similar magnitude or
for a NOAEL. This includes scientifically documented differences or similarities in physiology, metabolism
and toxic response(s) between experimental animals and humans. If sufficient data are available to
quantitate the toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic variabilities between experimental animals and humans
(see Sections 2.52 and 2.51), factor values of 3, 1, or CSAF(s) for toxicokinetics or toxicodynamics
determined from the data shall be considered. In the absence of these data, the default value of 10 shall
be used.
3.6.3.1.4.3 Subchronic to chronic extrapolation
Selection of the factor for subchronic to chronic extrapolation shall be based on the availability of data that
NOT FOR
allow for quantitative extrapolation of the critical effect after subchronic exposure to that after chronic
exposure. Selection shall also consider whether NOAELs differ quantitatively when different critical effects
are observed after subchronic and chronic exposure to the compound. When the critical effect is identified
from a study of chronic exposure, the factor value shall be 1. When sufficient data are available to quantitate
the difference in the critical effect after subchronic and chronic exposure, or when the principal studies do
DISTRIBUTION
not suggest that duration of exposure is a determinant of the critical effects, a factor value of 3 or a value
determined from the data shall be considered. In the absence of these data, the default value of 10 shall
be used.
3.6.3.1.4.4 Database sufficiency
OR SALE
Selection of the factor for database sufficiency shall be based on the ability of the existing data to support
a scientific judgment of the likely critical effect of exposure to the compound. When data exist from a
minimum of five core studies (two chronic bioassays in different species, one two-generation reproductive
study, and two developmental toxicity studies in different species), a factor value of 1 shall be considered.
When several, but not all, of the core studies are available, a factor value of 3 shall be considered. When
several of the core studies are unavailable, the default value of 10 shall be used.
3.6.3.1.4.5 LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation
Selection of the factor for LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation shall be based on the ability of the existing data
to allow the use of a LOAEL rather than a NOAEL for noncancer risk estimation. If a well-defined NOAEL
is identified, the factor value shall be 1. When the identified LOAEL is for a minimally adverse or reversible
toxic effect, a factor value of 3 shall be considered. When the identified LOAEL is for a severe or irreversible
toxic effect, a factor value of 10 shall be used.
3.6.3.2 Assessment of carcinogenic endpoints
Risk assessment for carcinogenic endpoints shall be performed using the linear approach, the nonlinear
approach, or both, consistent with the proposed US EPA Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines
(US EPA, 2005a). For substances that have been identified as known or likely human carcinogens
(as defined by these guidelines), a dose response assessment shall be performed. This dose response
encouraged by several federal and international agencies and organizations (Meek, 1994; Dourson, 1994; US EPA,
2014a).
16
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
assessment shall include analysis of dose both in the range of observation (animal and human studies) and
in the range of extrapolation to lower doses.
3.6.3.2.1 Analysis in the range of observation
Curve-fitting models shall be selected based on the characteristics of the response data in the observed
range. The model shall be selected, to the extent possible, based on the biological mode of action of the
substance taken together in a weight of evidence evaluation of the available toxicological and biological
data. The selected model shall be used to determine the LED10, which will either be the POD (see Section
2.30) for linear low dose extrapolation or the basis of the margin of MOE analysis (see Section 2.23) for a
nonlinear assessment.
NOTE — See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this analysis.
The following types of models shall be considered, as appropriate to the mode of action of the substance
under evaluation, the availability of adequate data, and the current state of risk assessment approaches:
— statistical or distribution models:
— log-probit;
— logit; or
NOT FOR
— Weibull.
— mechanistic models:
— one-hit;
DISTRIBUTION
— multi-hit;
— multi-stage; or
— cell kinetic multi-stage.
— model enhancement and dose scaling:
OR SALE
— time to tumor response;
— physiologically based toxicokinetic models;
— biologically based dose-response models; or
— surface area conversion.
If none of the available models provide a reasonable fit to the dataset, the following shall be considered to
see if lack of fit can be resolved (US EPA, 1995):
— interference at higher dose concentrations from competing mechanisms of toxicity that are a
progressive form of the response of interest;
— saturation of metabolic or delivery systems for the ultimate toxicant at higher dose concentrations;
and
— interference at higher dose concentrations due to toxic effects unrelated to the response of interest.
NOTE — When adjusting for these possibilities does not provide a reasonable fit, one suggested approach is
to delete the high dose data and refit the models based on the lower dose concentrations since these doses
are the most informative of the exposure concentrations anticipated to be encountered by humans.
17
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.6.3.2.2 Analysis in the range of extrapolation
The choice of procedure for low dose extrapolation shall be based on the biological mode of action of the
substance. Depending upon the quantity and quality of the data, and upon the conclusion of the weight of
evidence evaluation, the following procedures shall be used: linear, nonlinear, or linear and nonlinear.
3.6.3.2.2.1 Linear analysis
The linear default assumption shall be used when the toxicological data support a mode of action due to
DNA reactivity or another mode of action which is anticipated to be linear in nature. It shall also be used
when no data are available to justify an alternate approach. For linear extrapolation, a straight line is
constructed from the POD on the dose response curve to the zero dose / zero response point.
3.6.3.2.2.2 Nonlinear analysis
The nonlinear default assumption shall be used when the toxicological data are sufficient to support the
assumption of a nonlinear mechanism of action, and no evidence for linearity is available. An MOE analysis
shall be used for nonlinear assessment. The MOE shall be calculated by dividing the POD by the human
exposure concentration of interest.
3.6.3.2.2.3 Linear and nonlinear analysis
NOT FOR
Linear and nonlinear assessments shall be provided when the weight of evidence or the mode of action
analysis indicates differing modes of action for different target tissues, or to evaluate the implications of
complex dose response relationships. Where the results of linear and nonlinear evaluations differ, the range
of estimates shall be discussed, along with a justification for the estimate used in evaluation of the
DISTRIBUTION
substance.
3.6.3.3 Determination of the TAC for carcinogenic endpoints
The selected model shall be used to determine the dose equivalent to the LED10. For linear analyses, the
OR SALE
TAC shall be determined by linear extrapolation of the LED 10 to the origin of the dose response curve for
the selected level of risk (e.g., 10-5). For nonlinear analyses, the TAC shall be equal to the human exposure
concentration of interest that represents the selected MOE (LED10 / exposure of interest). For both types of
analyses, the level of risk or MOE shall be selected in accordance with the US EPA Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (US EPA, 2005a).
3.6.3.3.1 Determination of the TAC for carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action
For carcinogens acting through a mutagenic mode of action, potency adjustment factors shall be applied
as appropriate to determine unit risk by postnatal life stage according to US EPA (2005b) guidance, and
the TAC shall be calculated using the total lifetime risk. These procedures shall not be applied for
nonmutagenic carcinogens or when the mode of action is unknown (US EPA, 2005a), when there are
sufficient data to calculate a chemical-specific early life cancer slope factor, if the cancer slope factors are
derived from studies that incorporate exposures during early life, or when early life adjustment is not
otherwise appropriate biologically, such as if a metabolite of the chemical is the ultimate carcinogen
(US EPA, 2005a; MDH, 2010). When appropriate, the individual age group-adjusted unit risks (Unit Riskage)
associated with relevant time periods shall be calculated according to the equation below:
CSF (kg-d) 1 mg exposure (y) p.a.

Unit Riskage = × IR (L/kg-d) × × ×
mg 1000 µg 70y 1
18
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Where:
0.1
CSF (Cancer slope factor) =
BMDL10
IR = Ingestion rate for the corresponding age group: water ingestion pertaining to the individual
life stage shall be referenced from the 90th percentile in Table 3-19 and Table 3-21 of the US EPA’s
Exposure Factors Handbook (US EPA, 2019)
exposure = Number of years in each age group
p.a. = Potency adjustment factor, specific to the age group
The age groupings and default potency adjustment factors reported by US EPA (2005b) shall be used in
the calculation of the Unit Riskage, unless chemical-specific data are available to directly assess cancer
susceptibility from early-life exposure:
⎯ for exposures before 2 years of age (i.e., spanning a 2-year time interval from the first day of birth
up until a child’s second birthday), a 10-fold adjustment;
⎯ for exposures between 2 and < 16 years of age (i.e., spanning a 14-year time interval from a child’s
NOT FOR
second birthday up until their sixteenth birthday), a 3-fold adjustment; and
⎯ for exposures after turning 16 years of age, no adjustment.
The lifetime age-adjusted Unit Risk (Unit Riskage) is the sum of individual Unit Riskage values:
DISTRIBUTION
Σ individual Unit Riskage = lifetime Unit Riskage
The age-adjusted TAC in drinking water at the 10-5 level shall be derived using the Unit Riskage:
OR SALE
10-5
TACage =
Unit Riskage (µg/L)-1
The ingestion rate, exposure duration, and potency adjustment values reported in the US EPA’s Exposure
Factors Handbook8 (2019) are listed in Table 3.5 along with the calculated Unit Risk age values for each age
group. Applying the information of all the early life stages specified in Table 3.5 the default life-stage
adjustment algorithm is simplified below and can be used for derivation of the TAC:
10-5 10-5
TACage (10-5 risk level, µg/L) = =
Lifetime Unit Riskage 8 × 10-5 CSF
Therefore, the simplified:
0.13
TACage (10-5 risk level, µg/L) =
CSF
For comparison, the default age-adjusted TAC is approximately 2.3 times lower than the unadjusted TAC,
which is calculated as below:
8Ingestion rates are referenced as 90th percentile, consumers only, direct and indirect community water from Chapter
3 (US EPA, 2019); exposure duration and potency adjustment factors from Table 1-3 of Chapter 1 (US EPA, 2011a).
19
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
10-5 × 103 (µg/mg) 0.3

TAC (10-5 risk level, µg/L) = -1
=
CSF (mg/kg-d) × IRadult (L/kg-d) CSF
Where:
0.1
CSF (Cancer slope factor) = Generally based on a risk of 10%
BMDL10
IRADULT = Adult ingestion rate of 0.034 L/kg-d (based on US EPA, 2019).
NOTE — Although some regulatory agencies (e.g., California EPA) intend to apply early postnatal
life stage adjustment procedure to all carcinogens, regardless of the mechanisms of action, unless
chemical-specific data indicate the contrary, the US EPA specifies that this procedure should not be
used for nonmutagenic carcinogens or when the mode of action is unknown (US EPA, 2005a). In
addition, if there are sufficient data to calculate a chemical-specific early life cancer slope factor, or
if the cancer slope factors are derived from studies that incorporate exposures during early life, the
above methods should not be used (MDH, 2010). In addition, care should be taken early life
adjustment is not otherwise appropriate biologically, such as if a metabolite of the chemical is the
ultimate carcinogen, since children do not always metabolize the parent chemical as well as adults.
See US EPA (2005a, page 2-29).
NOT FOR
3.6.4 SPAC calculation for new or updated risk assessments
Calculation of the SPAC is intended to account for potential contribution of a single substance by multiple
products or materials in the drinking water treatment and distribution system. In any given drinking water
treatment and distribution system, a variety of products and materials may be added to or contact the
DISTRIBUTION
treated water prior to ingestion. The SPAC calculation is intended to ensure that the total contribution of a
single substance from all potential sources in the drinking water treatment and distribution system does not
exceed its acceptable concentration.
3.6.4.1 SPAC determination for qualitative risk assessment
OR SALE
The SPAC for qualitative risk assessments shall be equal to the value of the TAC.
3.6.4.2 SPAC determination for quantitative risk assessment
To calculate the SPAC, an estimate of the number of potential sources of the substance from all products
in the drinking water treatment and distribution system shall be determined. The SPAC shall be calculated
as follows:
TAC ( mg⁄L )
SPAC (mg⁄L) =
The unrounded value of the TAC shall be used in the calculation of the SPAC. In the absence of specific
data regarding the number of potential sources of the substance in the drinking water treatment and
distribution system, the SPAC shall be calculated as 10% of the TAC. The calculated SPAC shall be
rounded to one significant figure.
3.7 Risk estimation for short-term exposure (STEL calculation)
The STEL shall be calculated using the following equation:
[NOAELHED , BMDLHED , or LOAELHED ( mg⁄kg⁄d )] number of days dosed per week

STEL (mg⁄L) = =
UF × IR (L/kg-d) 7d
20
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
NOTE — When other than daily dosing was used in the critical study, the STEL calculation shall be
adjusted to reflect the dosing schedule.
The calculated STEL shall be rounded to one significant figure.
Where:
NOAELHED = Highest NOAELHED for the critical effect in a study of less than or equal to 90 day
duration (see Section 3.4); or BMDLHED for the critical effect; if a NOAELHED is not defined, the
LOAELHED shall be used with a corresponding adjustment to the UF (see Table 3.4); when HED
derivation is not applicable, the NOAEL, LOAEL, or BMDL shall be used with an interspecies UF
of 10 (see Sections 3.6.3.1.2, 3.6.3.1.3, and Table 3.4).
UF = Uncertainty factor (total) based upon the applicability of the test data in extrapolating to actual
conditions of human exposure (see Table 3.4); also referred to as safety factors.
IR = Ingestion rate is the assumed average daily drinking water consumption in liters per kg per
day equating to the 90th percentile, consumers only, community water intake (US EPA, 2019),
generally 0.15 L/kg-d for a child (0 to 12 mo of age), 0.033 L/kg-d for a pregnant woman,
0.054 L/kg for a lactating woman, 0.032 L/kg for a woman of child-bearing age, and 0.034 L/kg-d
for an adult. The default water consumption shall reflect that of a child, in the absence of data that
NOT FOR
demonstrates that adults, pregnant or lactating women are more sensitive than a child.9
3.8 Guidelines for the use of read-across approaches to establishing drinking water criteria
This Standard provides a TOE to be utilized when the required toxicity data to perform qualitative or
DISTRIBUTION
quantitative risk assessment (see Section 3.3) are unavailable, or when the required data are available, but
the normalized contaminant concentrations do not exceed the TOE concentrations (see Section 3.6.1).
However, normalized contaminant concentrations for chemicals that do not meet minimum data
requirements may exceed the TOE concentrations. In this case, it may be possible to determine evaluation
criteria for the substance using a read-across approach, based on the known toxicities of other chemicals
OR SALE
of similar structure, and/or metabolic fates, physicochemical properties, and functionality. Those criteria can
then be used as surrogates to the TAC and SPAC established on the basis of chemical-specific information.
Read-across entails the use of relevant information from analogous substances (the “source” information)
to predict properties for the “target” substance(s) under consideration. Further discussion on the information
required to justify a read-across approach is provided in the subsections below.
Authoritative guidelines for read-across approaches are available (ECHA, 2008; ECHA, 2017;
OECD, 2014a); thus, this section is intended to summarize the most important aspects of these guidelines
that are relevant for establishing drinking water criteria. The above guidelines should be consulted in
scenarios where further detail or guidance is required.
3.8.1 Guidelines for a category-based read-across approach
The term “category approach” is used when read-across is employed between several substances that
have structural similarity (ECHA, 2017). As a result of the structural similarity, the toxicological properties
will either all be similar or follow a regular pattern. When feasible, the category approach is generally
preferred to the analog approach (see Section 3.8.2) in a read-across assessment as it incorporates a
relatively large amount of data from several (as opposed to one) substances, thereby increasing the
robustness of the conclusion(s) derived for the target substance(s).
9Ingestion rates are taken from chapter 3 of US EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (2019) as follows: child (0 to
12 months): 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII data, Table 3-19; pregnant, lactating or women of child-bearing age: 1994-1996,
1998 CSFII data, Table 3-75; and adults: NHANES 2005-2010, Table 3-21.
21
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.8.1.1 Establishment of the chemical category
If the target substance has already been classified into a chemical category by an authoritative source
(such sources may include the US EPA’s High Production Volume Challenge Program, OECD Cooperative
Chemicals Assessment Programme, OECD QSAR Toolbox, or Health Canada’s Chemical Management
Plan), it may be sufficient to refer to the existing category and results that have already been agreed upon
by the relevant program. Otherwise, the chemical category shall consist of chemicals whose
physicochemical and/or human health properties are likely to be similar or follow a regular pattern, usually
as a result of structural similarity. The similarities may be based on the following:
⎯ common functional groups (e.g., aldehyde, epoxide, ester, specific metal ion);
⎯ common constituents or chemical classes, (may include overall structural trend or moiety, carbon
chain length, degree of linearity or branching, or impurity profile);
⎯ common precursors and/or likelihood of common breakdown products by physical and/or biological
processes which result in structurally similar degradation products; and
⎯ an incremental and constant change in a structural attribute across the category (e.g., a chain
length category).
NOT FOR
The identified category should have clear boundaries (i.e., an applicability domain) which may be based on
the inclusion / exclusion of relevant functional group(s) and/or exclusion of substances whose chain lengths
fall outside a predetermined range that is relevant to the mode of action. Every effort should be made to
incorporate all substances with relevant data that fit within the applicability domain; while the identification
of individual members of a category is often based on obvious structural similarities, QSAR-based software
DISTRIBUTION
tools may also be useful to identify additional substances that may fit within the identified category. The
chemical category and the chemical, physical, and toxicological attributes of each member of the category
should be fully described. A full description should include the following attributes:
⎯ the IUPAC chemical name, CAS number and chemical structure for each category member, where
OR SALE
possible;
⎯ a discussion of the structural similarities and differences among the members of the category;
⎯ a data matrix of physical-chemical properties, comparing the relevant experimental or predicted

attributes of the source substances with corresponding experimental or predicted attributes of the target
substance. Physical-chemical properties to be highlighted are listed in Section 3.9.2;
⎯ a description of how category members were selected and how the applicability domain of the
category was established; and
⎯ the data gap(s) that the analogue(s) will be used to predict.
In addition to the above, a separate data matrix should be created to summarize the known toxicological
endpoints for each member of the category, based on the results of a literature search for each member.
The data matrix can summarize both quantitative toxicological properties (i.e., LC50s or NOAELs for repeat-
dose studies), or qualitative properties (i.e., absence or presence of mutagenicity); and should additionally
highlight cases in which no data are available. Both data matrices should be constructed with the category
members arranged in a suitable order (for example, according to molecular weight) and should ideally
reflect any trends or progression seen within the category.
22
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.8.1.2 Justification for the chemical category
Since the category-based read-across approach is based on a hypothesis that substances with similar
structural and physicochemical attributes will have toxicological properties that are similar or vary in a
predictable manner, the substances within the established chemical category should have similar
physicochemical and toxicological characteristics, or they should vary in a predictable manner with respect
to structural variation (i.e., exhibit a trend). Any significant deviations from the described similarity or trend
in one or more of these characteristics among substances within the category could call into question the
validity of the established chemical category and should be explained. The presence of such a deviation
from the predicted similarity or trend among category members does not necessarily preclude the use of
the category approach; however, it may warrant a more conservative approach to the read-across as
discussed in Section 3.8.1.3. In addition, (Quantitative) Structural Activity Relationships ((Q)SARS) may be
used to address data gaps for physicochemical attributes when forming or justifying a category, or to help
identify additional category members (Section 3.8.3).
Structural and physicochemical similarity alone are usually insufficient to justify a category approach; thus,
data related to mode of action and/or absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) properties
are typically also required. For example, a thorough discussion of any information related to the mode of
action (including toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data, and identification of the target organ(s)), common
to the category members, and how it might influence the similarity or predicted variation in the toxicological
properties across the category, will significantly strengthen the justification for the category approach.
NOT FOR
Specifically, the common mechanism of toxicity should be described and linked to the structures of the
category members. Additionally, variations in quantitative toxicological effects may occur in a predictable
manner due to differences in kinetics and/or potency among the substances. Alternatively, the proposed
mode of action might predict no biologically significant quantitative differences in the effects caused by
exposure to the category members.
DISTRIBUTION
Likewise, the justification for the category approach is strengthened if several substances within the
category are predicted to be biotransformed in vivo into identical and/or similar substances, provided that
adequate data on ADME characteristics (including rates of formation of the biotransformation products) are
available to provide convincing evidence that common compound(s) are formed from category members,
OR SALE
and that the target organ(s) of the common biotransformation compound(s) are the same. To that end, a
full discussion of the relevant ADME pathway is required, and the proposed pathway should be supported
by high quality studies in rodents or humans. Furthermore, the identities of the predicted common
metabolites and their mode of action must be clearly defined and discussed, respectively. Other ADME
properties should be addressed as well; for example, the magnitude of the exposure of the target organ to
the parent substances may vary among substances in the category, and several additional noncommon
metabolites may occur for some category members but not others. These potential variations should all be
considered when justifying a category approach based on common metabolites.
3.8.1.3 Application of the category-based read-across approach to fill data gaps or establish a
class-based evaluation level (CBEL)
If the objective of the read-across approach is to address a genotoxicity data gap (i.e., mutagenicity or
clastogenicity), the known genotoxicity of category members can be used to predict presence or absence
of genotoxicity for the target. The presence or absence of structural alerts associated with genotoxicity in
the target compound and category members should also be noted. Read-across of a negative genotoxicity
finding is generally more difficult than read-across of a positive finding. For example, in order to justify
read-across of a negative finding for in-vitro genotoxicity, all the tested category members should be
classified as nonmutagenic and/or clastogenic based on the weight-of-evidence from studies of acceptable
quality. In cases where genotoxicity data are not available for all substances within a category, professional
judgment should be applied in determining whether adequate data are available to make the determination
of negative genotoxicity for the target substance without further testing.
Alternatively, a category approach can be used to establish a single set of drinking water criteria to be
applied to all substances within the category (i.e., class-based evaluation level, or CBEL). If drinking water
23
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
criteria have already been established for one or more members of the category, the CBEL shall not exceed
the lowest MCL or TAC and SPAC identified for the chemical(s) of known toxicity in the category. Sources
of drinking water criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
— US EPA regulatory values and other risk assessments, including MCLs, health advisories, and
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) entries;
— Health Canada risk assessments;
— risk assessments previously performed to the requirements of Section 3 (previously NSF/ANSI 61,
Annex A);
— state or provincial drinking water standards and guidelines; and
— WHO or other international drinking water standards and guidelines.
If drinking water criteria are not available for any substances within the established category, then for each
toxicological endpoint, the most conservative experimental value among the category members should be
applied to the target substance(s). The RfD for the target substance will therefore be based on the most
sensitive endpoint, and the most conservative POD (e.g., NOAEL, BMDL10) of all substances within the
category. The data requirements for single substances (see Table 3.2) also apply to the category as a
NOT FOR
whole, and for each endpoint, professional judgment should be applied in determining whether adequate
data are available for read-across.
A CBEL shall be used as a surrogate for the TAC and SPAC for each chemical of unknown toxicity that
meets the specifications of the defined chemical category (see Section 3.8.1.1), until such time as sufficient
DISTRIBUTION
toxicity data are available to determine chemical-specific evaluation criteria for that substance. The CBEL
shall not be applied to any substance for which available data and sound scientific judgment, such as
structure-activity relationship considerations, indicate that adverse health effects may result at the
established class-based evaluation criteria concentrations. If, after a chemical class is defined and its
evaluation criteria established, a substance of greater toxicological significance is identified within the class,
OR SALE
the class-based evaluation criteria shall be re-evaluated and revised to the acceptable concentrations of
the new substance. Therefore, read-across assessments that are based on a CBEL approach should be
re-evaluated periodically as new data become available for either the target chemical or the surrogate(s).
NOTE — It is recommended that documentation supporting class-based evaluation criteria be subject to the
external peer-review requirements of Section 3.9.15.
3.8.2 Guidelines for an analogue-based read-across approach
When read-across is employed between structurally similar substances, the term “analogue approach” is
used (ECHA, 2017). As a result of the structural similarity, a given toxicological property of one substance
(the source) is used to predict the same property for another substance (the target). Thus, the outcome of
a study conducted with the source substance is read-across to the target substance for the investigated
endpoint(s), provided that the relevancy of the selected analogue for each endpoint of concern has been
justified. The simplest case of an analogue approach is read-across from a single source substance to a
target substance. If an analogue approach uses more than one source or target substance, the assessment
of the read-across approach has to be repeated for each source and/or target substance.
The choice of whether to pursue a category-based or analogue-based approach to data gap filling is
situational and dependent on the data available, although a category approach is sometimes preferred
because it incorporates data from a range of substances rather than just one or a few. Thus, before pursuing
an analogue approach, it should be established whether the target substance is already a member of an
existing category (see Section 3.8.1.1). If so, then it may be sufficient to refer to the existing category and
results that have already been agreed upon by the relevant program.
24
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.8.2.1 Selecting the analogue substance(s)
(Quantitative) structural activity relationships ((Q)SARs) may be used to identify potential analogues for
utilization in a read-across approach to filling data gaps in cases where insufficient data on mode of action
and/or ADME properties are available to justify a more informed decision on analogue selection (see also
Section 3.8.3). (Q)SAR models that identify structural similarity in terms of a Tanimoto score or similar
quantitative measurement (i.e., VEGA, Toxmatch, etc.) can strengthen the robustness of the analogue
selection, although the use of SARs with qualitative search algorithms may be acceptable provided that
scientific rationale can be provided for the choice of analogue(s) in lieu of a quantitative justification. In
cases where one or more functional groups or moieties of the target substance suggest a certain metabolic
pathway, metabolic simulators such as the one available in the OECD QSAR Toolbox, may be useful to
predict biotransformation product(s) suitable for use as analogue(s). In any case, the justification for the
choice of (Q)SAR model(s) as well as the selected analogue(s) should be made explicit. A list of useful
software tools for analogue identification is provided below (not all-inclusive):
⎯ ChemID Plus Structural Similarity Search;

⎯ Danish QSAR Database;
⎯ OECD QSAR Toolbox;
⎯ Toxmatch;
⎯ US EPA Analog Identification Methodology (AIM);
⎯ US EPA Toxicology Estimation Software Tool (TEST); and
NOT FOR
⎯ Virtual Models for Evaluation of Chemicals within a Global Architecture (VEGA).
Professional judgment is required in order to interpret the results of these tools, and the selection of the
most appropriate tool(s) may depend on the endpoint(s) of concern. Generally, the selected analogue will
be the substance with the highest degree of structural and anticipated functional (i.e., biological) similarity
DISTRIBUTION
to the target with adequate experimental data to fill the data gap(s) of concern.
Alternatively, if there is information available on the ADME properties and/or the mode of action of the target
substance, a more informed decision can be made on the selection of the analogue. For example, the
selected analogue could be a substance that is known to follow a similar metabolic pathway, or may itself
OR SALE
be a biotransformation product of the target substance, as long as the metabolite yield and alternative
pathways of metabolism are taken into consideration. A selected analogue may similarly be a substance
that is known or predicted to induce toxicity via the same mechanism(s) and target organ. Analogues
selected in these manners may not always be the closest possible analogues in terms of structural similarity.
If two or more analogues are to be used in the read-across, they should be selected in a manner by which
the target is ‘bracketed’ by the analogues in terms of structural characteristics and physicochemical
properties, so that data gaps are filled by interpolation rather than extrapolation. Also note that if many
potential analogues are identified based on the approaches described above, a category based read-across
approach should be considered instead (see Section 3.8.1).
3.8.2.2 Justification for the selected analogue
For all assessments that are based on an analogue read-across approach, the following items should be
included:
⎯ the IUPAC chemical name, CAS number and chemical structure for the selected analogue;
⎯ a discussion of the structural similarities and differences between the target and the analogue;
⎯ a table comparing the experimental or predicted physical-chemical properties of the target and
analogue substances, physical-chemical properties to be highlighted are listed in Section 3.9.2;
⎯ a description of how the analogue was selected; and
25
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
⎯ the data gap(s) that the analogue(s) will be used to predict.
The physicochemical properties of the target and analogue substances should be similar, and any
substantial differences in one or more of these properties must be explained while addressing any potential
impacts on predicted toxicological characteristics. If two are more analogues are utilized in the read-across,
then the physicochemical properties of the target should be intermediate with respect to the selected
analogues.
All relevant toxicological data for the analogue substance should be thoroughly described, and studies that
address toxicological endpoints to be read-across to the target should be guideline-compliant with any
deviations or methodological shortcomings addressed. If the selected analogue is thought to have a similar
mode of action as the target, then the common underlying mechanism of toxicity should be fully described
and linked to the structural similarities between the analogue and target. In particular, the mode of action
discussion should address the structural differences between the target and the analogue and how these
differences might impact the toxicological outcome. Furthermore, if the read-across approach is intended
to fill a genotoxicity data gap, then the mode of action discussion should also address any potential
differences between the target and analogue in terms of their ability to bind to cellular proteins and DNA.
If the selected analogue is a known biotransformation product of the target substance (or vice versa), or if
the selected analogue is known to have biotransformation product(s) that are the same or similar to the
target, then a full discussion of the relevant ADME pathway is also required, and the proposed pathway
NOT FOR
should be supported by high quality studies in rodents or humans. The ADME discussion should also
address any potential differences in the magnitude of the exposure of the target organ to the parent
substance and the biotransformation product(s), and whether any additional metabolites may form from the
target substance that are not formed from the analogue substance. In particular, if the target substance is
the parent compound, the ability of the parent compound to rapidly metabolize into the analogue substance
DISTRIBUTION
must be addressed, since longer exposure durations to the parent (target) compared to the metabolite
(analogue) introduces a greater degree of uncertainty to the read-across justification.
If two or more analogues are to be used in the read-across, then the justification described above should
be repeated for each analogue.
OR SALE
3.8.2.3 Application of the analogue-based read-across approach to fill data gaps
Generally, in a well-supported read-across approach incorporating a single analogue substance, the

toxicological endpoint(s) of concern can be read-across from the analogue substance to the target
substance in order to fill the relevant data gap(s). Read-across involving only a single analogue, particularly
when the read-across involves an absence of an effect, requires the most robust justification with respect
to Section 3.8.2.2. If two or more analogues are incorporated, then typically for each endpoint, the most
conservative result among the analogues is read-across to the target substance, unless a result from a
“less conservative” analogue can be supported based on the mode of action and/or ADME discussion.
3.8.3 Guidelines for the use of (quantitative) structural activity relationship ((Q)SAR) models
According to ECHA (2008), SARs and QSARs are theoretical models that are used to predict in a qualitative
or quantitative manner the physicochemical, toxicological and environmental fate properties of chemical
substances on the basis of their structural properties. Whereas a SAR is a qualitative correlation between
the presence of certain functional groups or moieties and properties or activities of interest, QSARs are
mathematical models often based on statistical correlations, relating one or more quantitative parameters
derived from the chemical structure to a quantitative measurement of interest. Both SARs and QSARs
based on relevant and reliable models can be useful in searching for potential analogue substances in a
read-across approach or for screening purposes in cases where a data gap is present or when
supplementation to experimental data is deemed useful. For all toxicological, physicochemical, and
environmental endpoints, experimental results always take precedence over predictions based on (Q)SAR
results. Therefore, (Q)SAR-based predictions should only be considered in cases where no data on the
relevant endpoint(s) are available or where supplementation of existing experimental data is deemed useful.
26
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
The use of (Q)SAR models for analogue identification is described in Section 3.8.2.1. A discussion of the
use of (Q)SAR models for identifying structural alerts for hazard screening and for filling data gaps is
provided below.
3.8.3.1 Use of (Q)SARs in hazard screening and identification of structural alerts
The presence of certain functional groups or moieties, or structural alerts, within the chemical structure of
a compound may be associated with a toxicological hazard. These structural alerts often suggest increased
potential of DNA and/or protein binding, formation of reactive oxygen species, or other biological effect(s)
which could increase carcinogenic, genotoxic, and/or reproductive and developmental toxicity potential,
among others. The use of SARs is a recognized method for the identification of structural alerts in
concordance with professional judgment (ECHA, 2008). The identification of structural alert(s) and their
corresponding toxicological hazard can be particularly useful in cases where a screening assessment of
carcinogenic potential needs to be made to clear a substance to TOE levels (Section 3.6.1). For example,
if no toxicological data are available for the target substance or its potential analogues, the presence of one
or more structural alerts that are associated with an adverse toxicological effect may indicate that the
application of the TOE thresholds is not appropriate, or vice-versa. In the former case, the use of other
internationally recognized hazard screening protocols, such as the TTC approach (Kroes et al., 2004), may
be utilized to proposed drinking water criteria that are not in excess of the TOE threshold. (Q)SAR software
programs currently available for this purpose include the OECD QSAR Toolbox, OncoLogic ® (for
carcinogenicity only), ToxTree, and Virtual Models for Evaluation of Chemicals within a Global Architecture
NOT FOR
(VEGA).
3.8.3.2 Use of (Q)SARs for data gap filling
Experimental data from the target substance or from analogue substances shall always take precedence
DISTRIBUTION
over (Q)SAR-based predictions when drawing conclusions pursuant to establishing drinking water criteria.
However, the use of such predictions may, in limited cases, be applied toward addressing data gaps. For
example, data gap filling using QSAR-based predictions may occur when experimental data for certain
physicochemical, ecotoxicological, or environmental fate properties are not available for a compound or its
analogue(s) and a predicted value is required (ECHA, 2008). With respect to toxicological endpoints, the
OR SALE
use of (Q)SAR models by itself cannot serve to fulfill the data requirements for a qualitative or quantitative
risk assessment, although QSAR-based predictions may be used to support experimental data. For
example, (Q)SAR-based predictions serve to assess the reliability of experimental data (i.e., to support the
choice of an experimental value from a range of values), to support an analogue approach (i.e., to predict
endpoints for substances with similar chemical structures to the target and analogue) or to provide
supporting information on toxicokinetics (ECHA, 2008). All (Q)SAR based predictions for toxicological
endpoints should be interpreted with caution and evaluated for reliability; in particular, the substances used
in the model training sets should be reviewed and the target substance should be within the model’s
applicability domain. (Q)SAR software programs currently available for this purpose include ECOSAR (for
aquatic toxicity endpoints only), Estimation Program Interface Suite (EPISUITE) (for physicochemical and
environmental fate properties only), OECD QSAR Toolbox, and Virtual Models for Evaluation of Chemicals
within a Global Architecture (VEGA).
3.9 Key elements of a risk assessment for drinking water additive chemicals
This section establishes the minimum criteria for the documentation of the data review performed on each
drinking water additive chemical that requires a new or updated assessment. The assessment shall include,
but not be limited to, evaluation of the elements detailed in this section.
3.9.1 Abstract
A summary shall be provided of the following:
— overview of the key toxicology studies;
27
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— rationale for the selection of the critical effect and the corresponding NOAEL or other endpoint for
calculation;
— major assumptions used in the assessment and areas of uncertainty; and
— presentation of the RfD, TAC, SPAC and STEL values.
3.9.2 Physical and chemical properties
The assessment shall define the following parameters for the substance, as applicable:
— chemical formula, structure, CAS number, and molecular weight;

— physical state and appearance;
— melting point or boiling point;
— vapor pressure;
— solubility in water;
— density;
— organoleptic properties (taste and odor thresholds);
— dissociation constant (pKa); and
— partition coefficients (octanol / water, air / water).
NOT FOR
3.9.3 Production and use
The assessment shall review the method(s) of production of the substance, whether it is a synthetic or a
naturally occurring substance, and the principal uses of the chemical. This includes any use as a water
treatment chemical or a food additive (direct or indirect) and its presence in such products as medicines,
DISTRIBUTION
personal care products or cosmetics.
3.9.4 Analytical methods
For each identified analytical method for the substance, the following shall be summarized:
OR SALE
— analytical matrix;
— sample preparation, if applicable;
— method of analysis;
— type of detector or the wavelength for spectroscopic methods; and
— detection limit.
3.9.5 Sources of human and environmental exposure
The assessment shall describe the substance’s natural occurrence, if any, and its presence in food or other
media. Human exposure from drinking water, food, and air shall be described, including occupational
exposures. The major source(s) and route(s) of human exposure shall be identified.
3.9.6 Comparative kinetics and metabolism
All references describing the ADME of the substance shall be reviewed. Both human data (when available)
and animal data shall be included.
3.9.7 Effects on humans
A summary of each relevant reference documenting human exposure to the substance that is used in the
hazard assessment shall be provided. These exposures can include both case reports of incidental human
exposure to the substance, and epidemiological studies, which explore the association between human
exposure and specific toxic endpoints. Primary literature references shall be reviewed whenever possible.
28
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Supporting data or other studies not utilized in the hazard assessment can be summarized in tabular form.
3.9.8 Effects on laboratory animals and in vitro test systems
A summary of each key study of the substance in experimental animals or in vitro test systems that is used
in the hazard assessment shall be provided. The references used shall meet established toxicity study
guidelines, as defined in Section 3.3.1, or any deficiencies shall be clearly identified. Studies shall include,
but are not limited to the following: single exposure, short-term exposure (repeated dose study of < 28 day),
long-term and chronic exposure (repeated dose study of ≥ 28 day), genotoxicity, reproduction and
developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, and neurotoxicity. Primary literature references shall be reviewed
whenever possible.
Supporting data or other studies not utilized in the hazard assessment can be summarized in tabular form.
3.9.9 Effects evaluation
The effects evaluation is intended to provide an overall summary of the data reviewed for the substance
and describe its mode / mechanism of action, if possible. This evaluation also serves to define the level of
hazard represented by exposure to the substance at relevant human concentrations. This evaluation shall
contain three major elements: hazard identification (assessment), dose-response assessment, and
exposure assessment (NRC, 1983).
NOT FOR
3.9.9.1 Hazard identification
The hazard identification (assessment) shall identify and discuss the following issues:
DISTRIBUTION
— the key data that define the basis of the concern to human health;
— the characterization of the substance as carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic, the basis for this
characterization, and the critical effect(s);
OR SALE
— the extent to which this characterization is a function of study design (e.g., adequate number of
doses used, effects noted only at highest dose, study performed at the maximum tolerated dose);
— the conclusions of the key study(ies) and whether they are supported or conflicted by other data;
— the significant data gaps for the substance and any relevant nonpositive data;
— the available human data (case reports or epidemiological studies), and how they support or do not
support the conclusions from the key study(ies);
— the mechanism by which the substance produces the adverse effect(s) noted in the key study, and
whether this mechanism is relevant to humans; and
— the summary of the hazard assessment including confidence in the conclusions, alternate
conclusions which may also be supported by the data, significant data gaps, and the major assumptions
used in the assessment.
3.9.9.2 Dose-response assessment
The dose-response assessment shall identify and discuss the following issues:
— the data used to define the dose-response curve, and in which species the data were generated;
— if animal data were used, whether the most sensitive species was evaluated;
29
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— if human data were used, whether positive and negative data were reported;
— whether the critical data were from the same route of exposure as the expected human exposure
(drinking water), and if not, discuss whether pharmacokinetic data are available to extrapolate between
routes of exposure;
— for noncarcinogens, the methodology employed to calculate the RfD and the selection of the UFs
which were used;
— for carcinogens, the dose-response model selected to calculate the LED10 and the rationale
supporting its selection; and
— document the RfD calculation (see Section 3.6.3).
3.9.9.3 Exposure characterization
The exposure characterization shall identify and discuss the following issues:
— the most significant source(s) of environmental exposure to the substance, and the RSC of each;
— the population(s) most at risk of exposure, and identify highly exposed or sensitive subpopulations;
NOT FOR
and
— any issues related to cumulative or multiple exposures to the substance.
3.9.10 Risk characterization
DISTRIBUTION
3.9.10.1 Confidence in the assessment
A narrative description of the overall confidence in the risk assessment shall be included. The confidence
in the risk assessment is considered to be inversely related to the degree of scientific uncertainty in the
OR SALE
underlying analysis (Beck et al., 2016; NRC, 2009). The narrative should incorporate a discussion of the
specific elements of scientific uncertainty that inform the overall confidence in the risk assessment
(Beck et al., 2016).
Major elements of scientific uncertainty may be considered to include, but not limited to, the following;
database completeness, quality of key study(ies), severity and relevance of the critical effect, quality of the
dose-response analysis and consideration of sensitive subpopulations (Beck et al., 2016).
In assessing the database completeness, the types of toxicity data (e.g., human, animal, mode of action)
as well as data gaps that may have improved the derived risk values should be emphasized. This approach
should take into consideration issues such as the types of endpoints evaluated, life-stages evaluated,
duration, timing, route of exposure, and the potential for latent effects and/or reversibility of effects
(US EPA, 2002a).
The assessment of study quality shall include a discussion of the key toxicity studies as compared with the
most recently adopted toxicity testing protocols (as described in Section 3.3.1). Particular emphasis should
be placed on deviations from protocols that may have the potential to alter the selected POD. Additional
consideration should be given to situations where key toxicity data were obtained from secondary sources
as opposed to the primary source. The potential limitations of using toxicity data obtained from secondary
sources should be reviewed within the narrative.
Following consideration of the elements of scientific uncertainty within the risk assessment, a concluding
statement regarding the overall confidence (e.g., low, medium, high) in the derived risk values shall be
included along with the critical research needs that could increase confidence if a future, updated risk
assessment is warranted.
30
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
3.9.10.2 TAC derivation
The TAC derivation shall contain an explanation of all factors contributing to the TAC calculation, including
adjustment for sources of the substance other than water. The TAC calculation shall be based on the oral
RfD calculated during the dose response assessment in Section 3.9.9.2. The TAC calculation shall include
adjustment for significant contributions of the substance from sources other than water, e.g., food and air.
In the absence of data to determine the relative source contribution of a substance, a default drinking water
contribution of 20% shall be applied.
3.9.10.3 STEL derivation
When a STEL is calculated for a substance, the calculation shall be based on the NOAEL or LOAEL of the
selected study (as defined in Section 3.4) with adjustment for body weight and daily water consumption of
the protected individual, including any sensitive subpopulations. The default body weight and water
consumption shall reflect that of a bottle-fed infant, in the absence of data which demonstrate that children,
adults, or pregnant women are more sensitive to the substance than infants. A rationale for the selection of
UFs used in the calculation shall also be provided.
3.9.11 Risk management (SPAC derivation)
The TAC calculation shall form the basis of the SPAC calculation. The SPAC is equal to the TAC for
NOT FOR
qualitative risk assessments. For quantitative risk assessments, the SPAC shall be calculated as a
percentage of the TAC value, based on the estimated total number of sources of the substance in the
drinking water treatment and distribution system. In the absence of these data, the SPAC shall be calculated
as 10% of the TAC value (default multiple source factor of 10 to account for other sources of the substance
in drinking water).
DISTRIBUTION
3.9.12 Risk comparisons and conclusions
A review of other evaluations of the substance performed by other organizations (international, national,
state or provincial agencies, or other entities) shall be provided. Consistencies and differences between
OR SALE
evaluations shall be noted. Any uncertainties in these evaluations shall be discussed. A summary of the
overall risk of the substance shall be made, including a discussion about compounds of comparable risk
(e.g., similar structure, chemical class) when possible.
3.9.13 References
An alphabetized list of all reviewed citations (both cited and not cited in the assessment) shall be provided
in an established format such as that described in The Chicago Manual of Style.
3.9.14 Appendices
Supporting documents, complex calculations, data summary tables, unique definitions, and other pertinent
information shall be included in appendices to the document.
3.9.15 Peer review
Risk assessments performed to the requirements of this Standard shall undergo external peer review
(US EPA, 2015b) by toxicology experts representing the regulatory, academic, independent or industrial
sectors, with the exception of the following:
— substances evaluated using the TOE (see Section 3.6.1);
31
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
— substances evaluated to a TAC of 10 μg/L using the qualitative approach based on chemical-
specific data that are clearly negative and concluded to be nongenotoxic 10 (see Sections 3.3.2 and
3.6.2); and
— nonregulatory criteria that have already undergone peer review, such as, but not limited to, those
shown in Table 3.6.
Only peer-reviewed risk assessments conducted by regional, national, or international authoritative bodies
according to current best practices may be used to derive TACs, SPACs, and STELs. Each assessment
under consideration shall be individually reviewed to determine if it is current and meets the requirements
of this Standard. Prior to use of any peer-reviewed risk value, a literature search shall be performed to
ensure that the risk-based value is still current. At a minimum, the literature search shall be performed to
identify relevant publications issued since publication of the risk-based value. The risk assessment methods
used by the organization for the assessment shall be reviewed to determine if they are equivalent to those
outlined in this Standard. This includes consideration of the key study, POD, and UF selection to ensure
consistency with current practices, as well as interpretation of sensitive effects (e.g., to determine if scientific
consensus on interpretation has changed), as well as a review of risk assessment methodology for
consistency with this Standard (e.g., minimum dataset, default body weights, life-stage adjustment,
dosimetric adjustment). When possible, appropriate adjustments should be made to account for any
deviations or deficiencies in the assessment.
NOT FOR
An abbreviated risk assessment report should be prepared to indicate that the existing assessment is
relevant to drinking water and to document the results of the updated literature search (e.g., failed to find
any new data that would impact the assessment, or new data or methodology have been incorporated or
addressed).
DISTRIBUTION
In order to comply with this Standard’s requirements, additional steps may need to be taken to derive TACs,
SPACs, and STELs from sources shown in Table 3.6, including:
⎯ incorporation of life-stage adjustment factors for chemicals with mutagenic modes of action;
OR SALE
⎯ incorporation of dosimetric adjustment;
⎯ adjustment from a body weight or intake rate that differs from the default body weight designated
by this Standard; and
⎯ transformation of µg/d risk-based values (e.g., NRSL, MADL) to µg/L drinking water levels.
If the review of the assessment determines that there are significant deviations from this Standard that are
unable to be resolved with additional steps as those described above, the assessment is not suitable for
derivation of a TAC, SPAC, and STEL, and a new risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with
this Standard.
10 Qualitative assessments based on read-across to satisfy the minimum data requirement and/or that include
professional judgment related to the weight of evidence interpretation of mixed or equivocal genotoxicity data may
necessitate peer review.
32
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Has risk assessment

Yes been performed? No
(see Section 3.2)
Review toxicity data

Yes Is the risk estimation No and determine risk
consistent with assessment approach
Section 3.6? (see Section 3.3)
Determine TAC Chemical class-based

Qualitative approach Threshold of
and SPAC from evaluation criteria Quantitative approach
(see Sections 3.6.2 evaluation approach
risk estimation approach (see Section 3.6.3)
and 3.6.4.1) (see Section 3.6.1)
(see Section 3.5) (see Section 3.8)
Determine TAC and SPAC Determine TAC and SPAC

from risk estimation Yes Is the critical effect a No from risk estimation
(see Section 3.6.3.1 and noncarcinogenic endpoint? (see Sections 3.6.3.3
3.6.4.2) and 3.6.4.2)
Figure 1
Toxicity data review process
33
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Extrapolation Range Observed Range
)
ose
Response
D
n
it o
Human Lim
e)
e
nc
at
Exposure of e
m
fid
sti
Interest on
lE
( C
tra
en
(C
10%
ar
ed Line
ject
Pro
0%
LED
LED10
10
ED
ED10
10
Legend
Legend
MOE ED
ED – see
10 10 - seeSection
annex 2.14
A, A.2.4
MOE
LED - see annex A, A.2.7
– see Section 2.20
LED10 10
Dose MOE - see annex A, A.2.9
Dose MOE – see Section 2.23
Figure A2 - Graphical presentation of data and extrapolations (U.S. EPA, 1996a)

Figure 2
Graphical presentation of data and extrapolations (US EPA, 1996a)
34
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 3.1
Qualitative risk assessment data requirements
Study type Preferred criteria

Required studies
bacterial reverse mutation assay performed with and without
exogenous metabolic activation using Salmonella typhimurium
gene mutation assay1 (preferred strains are TA97, TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, and
TA1537) or Escherichia coli (preferred strains are WP2 uvrA or
WP2 uvrA [pKM101])
chromosomal aberration assay1 metaphase analysis in mammalian cells and without exogenous
(in vitro preferred) metabolic activation
in vivo metaphase analysis or micronucleus assay in mammalian species
Supplemental studies
mouse lymphoma assay, SCE,2 UDS,3 HGPRT,4 DNA binding
supplemental genotoxicity studies
(post labeling assay)
bioaccumulation potential octanol / water partition coefficient
pharmacokinetics ADME data in humans, other mammalian species, or both
NOT FOR
structural / functional assessment structure / activity relationship analysis
acute or short-term toxicity5 1- to 14-day study or 14- to 28-day study using oral exposure route
cell proliferation / cell cycle assays proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)
sensitization guinea pig intradermal injection
DISTRIBUTION
in vivo gene mutation assay transgenic gene mutation assays
receptor binding / transcriptional activation assays, frog
endocrine disruption assays
metamorphosis assay, steroidogenesis assay
human data epidemiological, occupational, or clinical studies
OR SALE
1 The gene mutation assay and the chromosomal aberration assay (in vitro or in vivo) shall constitute the minimum
data set required to perform a qualitative risk assessment. When one or both in vitro genotoxicity studies are positive,
the in vivo assay shall be required to be reviewed.
2 Sister chromatid exchange assay; SCEs are not considered to be mutagenic effects because the exchange is
assumed to be reciprocal with no gain, loss, or change of genetic material. However, they do indicate that the test
material has interacted with the DNA in a way that may lead to chromosome damage. In in vitro studies, SCEs do not
provide adequate evidence of mutagenicity, but do identify the need for definitive chromosomal aberration studies.
When evidence of in vitro clastogenicity exists, the induction of SCEs is often used as evidence of likely in vivo
clastogenic activity because the in vitro aberration data demonstrate the clastogenic activity of the compound and the
in vivo SCE data demonstrate that the compound interacted with the DNA in the target tissue.
3 Unscheduled DNA synthesis assay.
4 Hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyl transferase assay.
5Minimum reported parameters shall include clinical observations, hematology and clinical chemistry, and gross
pathology.
35
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 3.2
Quantitative risk assessment data requirements

Required studies
bacterial reverse mutation assay performed with and without
exogenous metabolic activation using Salmonella typhimurium
gene mutation assay1 (preferred strains are TA97, TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, and
TA1537) or Escherichia coli (preferred strains are WP2 uvrA or
WP2 uvrA (pKM101)
chromosomal aberration assay1 metaphase analysis in mammalian cells and without exogenous
(in vitro preferred) metabolic activation
in vivo metaphase analysis or micronucleus assay in mammalian species
subchronic toxicity 1 90-day assay in rodent species by oral route of exposure
Additional studies (required as indicated)
reproduction assay2 two-generation reproductive assay in a rodent species
teratology study (two species, one rodent and one nonrodent, are
developmental assay2
preferred)
NOT FOR
chronic study 3 two year bioassay in rodent species by oral route of exposure
Supplemental studies
mouse lymphoma, SCE,4 UDS,5 HGPRT,6 DNA binding
supplemental genotoxicity studies
(post labeling assay)
bioaccumulation potential octanol / water partition coefficient
DISTRIBUTION
pharmacokinetics ADME data in humans, other mammalian species, or both
structural / functional assessment structure / activity relationship analysis
acute or short-term toxicity7 1- to 14-day or 14- to 28-day study using oral exposure
OR SALE
cell proliferation / cell cycle assays proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)
sensitization guinea pig intradermal injection
in vivo gene mutation assay transgenic gene mutation assays
receptor binding / transcriptional activation assays, frog
endocrine disruption assays
metamorphosis assay, steroidogenesis assay
human data epidemiological, occupational, or clinical studies
1The gene mutation assay, the chromosomal aberration assay (in vitro or in vivo), and the subchronic toxicity study
shall constitute the minimum data set required to perform a quantitative risk assessment. When one or both in vitro
genotoxicity studies are positive, the in vivo assay shall be required to be reviewed.
2 It is recommended that results of a screening assay, such as OECD No. 422, Combined repeated dose toxicity
study with reproduction / developmental toxicity screening test, or data from other repeated dose assays which include
histopathological examination of the reproductive tissues of each sex be reviewed prior to a determination that these
assays are required for evaluation.
3 A chronic study with evaluation of carcinogenic endpoints is required when review of the minimum data set
concludes that the substance is likely to be a human health hazard at exposures of 10 μg/L or less.
4 Sister chromatid exchange assay; SCEs are not considered to be mutagenic effects because the exchange is
assumed to be reciprocal with no gain, loss, or change of genetic material. However, they do indicate that the test
material has interacted with the DNA in a way that may lead to chromosome damage. In in vitro studies, SCEs do not
provide adequate evidence of mutagenicity, but do identify the need for definitive chromosomal aberration studies.
When evidence of in vitro clastogenicity exists, the induction of SCEs is often used as evidence of likely in vivo
clastogenic activity because the in vitro aberration data demonstrate the clastogenic activity of the compound and the
in vivo SCE data demonstrate that the compound interacted with the DNA in the target tissue.
36
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 3.2
Quantitative risk assessment data requirements

5 Unscheduled DNA synthesis assay.
6 Hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyl transferase assay.
7 Minimum reported parameters include clinical observations, hematology and clinical chemistry, and gross pathology.
Table 3.3
TACs for qualitative risk assessment
Conclusion of data review TAC

The weight of evidence review of the required genotoxicity studies and all
other relevant data concludes that the substance is not a hazard at 10 μg/L
exposures of 10 μg/L or less.
The weight of evidence review of the required genotoxicity studies, a
repeated dose study of less than 90 duration,1 and all other relevant data
NOT FOR
≤ 50 μg/L
concludes that the substance is not a human health hazard at exposures
of 50 μg/L or less.
The weight of evidence review of the required genotoxicity studies and all supplemental studies or
other relevant data concludes that the data are insufficient to determine chronic toxicity and
the potential human health hazard of the substance at exposures of carcinogenesis bioassay
DISTRIBUTION
10 μg/L or less. required for review
The weight of evidence review of the required genotoxicity studies and all chronic toxicity and
other relevant data concludes that the substance is likely to be a human carcinogenesis bioassay
health hazard at exposures of 10 μg/L or less. required for review
1
OR SALE
Required study parameters include organ and body weights, clinical chemistry and hematology, gross pathology,
and histopathology.
37
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 3.4
Uncertainty factors (UFs)
Areas of uncertainty Factor

Intraspecies extrapolation (species variation): This factor accounts for variations in
chemical sensitivity among individuals in a species including toxicokinetic and 1, 3, or 10
toxicodynamic parameters.
Interspecies extrapolation (animal to human): This factor accounts for variations in
chemical sensitivity between experimental animals and humans including 1, 3, or 10
toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic parameters.
Less than lifetime duration of exposure: This factor is intended to extrapolate
1, 3, or 10
experimental results from subchronic to chronic exposure.
Use of LOAEL rather than NOAEL1: This factor addresses the uncertainty in
1, 3, or 10
developing a RfD from a LOAEL rather than a NOAEL.
Lack of database completeness: This factor accounts for the absence of data for
1, 3, or 10
specific toxic endpoints.
1 This adjustment is not required for BMDL calculations.
NOTE — When uncertainties exist in four areas, a 3,000-fold composite UF is appropriate. When
uncertainties exist in five areas, a 10,000-fold composite UF is appropriate. This consolidation of individual
NOT FOR
factors recognizes that each individual factor is conservative, and multiplication of four or five UFs is likely
to result in an overly conservative RfD. Datasets that would result in a composite UF of greater than
10,000-fold are considered too weak for quantitative risk assessment (see Section 3.3.2 for qualitative risk
assessment requirements) (Dourson, 1994).
DISTRIBUTION
Table 3.5
Unit Riskage values
Ingestion rate for 90th Exposure Potency

Unit Riskage1
OR SALE
Age grouping percentile consumer duration adjustment
(μg/L)-1
only (L/kg-d) (years) (p.a.)
birth to < 1 month 0.235 0.083 10 3 × 10-6 CSF
1 to < 3 months 0.228 0.167 10 5 × 10-6 CSF
3 to < 6 months 0.148 0.25 10 5 × 10-6 CSF
6 to < 12 months 0.112 0.5 10 8 × 10-6 CSF
1 to < 2 years 0.056 1 10 8 × 10-6 CSF
2 to < 3 years 0.052 1 3 2 × 10-6 CSF
3 to < 6 years 0.049 3 3 6 × 10-6 CSF
6 to < 11 years 0.035 5 3 8 × 10-6 CSF
11 to < 16 years 0.026 5 3 6 × 10-6 CSF
16 to < 21 years 0.025 5 1 2 × 10-6 CSF
21 to < 50 years 0.035 29 1 1 × 10-5 CSF
51 to 70 years 0.033 20 1 9 × 10-6 CSF
Total lifetime Unit Riskage 0.034 70 — 8 × 10-5 CSF
1 Based on 1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an 80 kg adult body weight.
38
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 3.6
Peer reviewed risk values
Source Non-cancer value Cancer value Link Comments

<https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/
Agency for Toxic mrllist.asp> and acute, intermediate and chronic
minimal risk levels (MRLs)
Substances and Disease not applicable <https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/ MRLs available: Use chronic
(chronic MRLs only)
Registry (ATSDR) pdfs/atsdr_mrls.pdf> MRLs only
(comprehensive list)
public health goals (PHGs)
California Public Health public health goals (PHGs) <http://oehha.ca.gov/water/
for carcinogens —
Goal Risk Values for non-carcinogens public-health-goals-phgs>
(10-6 cancer risk)
NOT FOR
Health Canada <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/
tolerable daily intakes
Toxicological Reference oral cancer slope factors ewh-semt/pubs/contamsite/ —
(TDIs)
Values (TRVs) part-partie_ii/index-eng.php>
Joint FAO/WHO Meeting <http://www.fao.org/agriculture
acceptable daily intakes
on Pesticide Residues not applicable /crops/thematic-sitemap/ —
DISTRIBUTION
(ADIs)
(JMPR) theme/pests/lpe/en/>
additional lifetime cancer <https://www.health.state.mn.us/
Minnesota Department of
health risk limits (HRLs) risk (ALR) communities/environment/risk/ —
Health
(10-5 cancer risk) guidance/gw/table.html>
<https://oehha.ca.gov/
OR SALE
proposition-65/general- apply life-stage adjustment for
OEHHA Proposition 65 maximum allowable dose no significant risk levels
info/current-proposition-65-no- carcinogens acting through a
Safe Harbor Levels levels (MADLs) (NSRLs)
significant-risk-levels-nsrls- mutagenic mode of action
maximum>
RIVM TDIs and
apply life-stage adjustment for
independently derived peer IPCS TD50;
carcinogens acting through a
International Toxicity reviewed values, including RIVM cancer risk
<https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ mutagenic mode of action; Non-
Estimates for Risk those of the Texas (1 × 10-4 cancer risk);
newtoxnet/iter.htm> oral route risk values require
Assessment (ITER) Commission on independently derived
adequate toxicokinetic data to
Environmental Quality peer reviewed values
extrapolate to oral route
(TCEQ)
<https://www.epa.gov/wqc/
US EPA Ambient Water apply life-stage adjustment for
national-recommended-water-
Quality Criteria: Human RfD 10-6 cancer risk carcinogens acting through a
quality-criteria-human-health-
Health mutagenic mode of action
criteria-table>
39
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 3.6
Peer reviewed risk values
Source Non-cancer value Cancer value Link Comments

1-day (10 kg child), 10-day
<https://www.epa.gov/sites/ apply life-stage adjustment for
US EPA Health (10 kg child), and lifetime
10-4 cancer risk production/files/2018-03/ carcinogens acting through a
Advisories (70 kg adult) health
documents/dwtable2018.pdf> mutagenic mode of action
advisory
US EPA Integrated Risk apply life-stage adjustment for
<https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/
Information System oral reference dose (RfD) oral slope factor (CSF) carcinogens acting through a
search/index.cfm?>
(IRIS) Program mutagenic mode of action
<http://apps.who.int/
World Health acceptable daily intakes
NOT FOR
not applicable food-additives-contaminants- —
Organization (WHO) (ADIs)
jecfa-database/search.aspx#>
WHO Guidelines for <http://www.who.int/ apply life-stage adjustment for
Drinking Water Quality tolerable daily intake (TDI) 10-5 cancer risk water_sanitation_health/water- carcinogens acting through a
(GDWQ) quality/guidelines/chemicals/en/> mutagenic mode of action
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
40
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
4 Normative drinking water criteria

(previously NSF/ANSI 60 Annex C, NSF/ANSI 61 Annex D)
4.1 General
The drinking water criteria provided in this Standard shall be used as evaluation criteria for the
determination of product compliance to the health effects requirements of drinking water Standards in which
this Standard is cited, including NSF/ANSI/CAN 60 and NSF/ANSI/CAN 61.
The values in Table 4.1 include the consensus US EPA and Health Canada drinking water criteria for
contaminants regulated by these agencies. The table also includes criteria for nonregulated contaminants
that have been derived using standard cancer and noncancer chemical risk assessment methodologies
according to the requirements of Section 3. Nonregulatory US EPA guidance values are also included, as
well as criteria for chemicals that have been evaluated using the class-based effect level and TOE
approaches detailed in Section 3.
The drinking water criteria in this Standard have not been evaluated for taste and odor considerations at
the indicated concentration limits.
NOTE — The substances listed in Table 4.1 are not intended to encompass all the potential analytes of interest
that need to be considered in evaluating products to the requirements of NSF drinking water Standards. The
NOT FOR
user is cautioned that each product may have formulation-dependent analytes of interest for which acceptable
concentration limits have not been determined. In these cases, the user is directed to develop acceptable
concentration limits based on the requirements of Section 3 to be in compliance with the requirements of the
Standards in which this Standard is cited.
DISTRIBUTION
4.2 US EPA and Health Canada drinking water criteria
Where indicated, Table 4.1 contains drinking water criteria for contaminants regulated by the US EPA and
established by Health Canada. Values for each contaminant have been agreed upon by representatives of
both agencies for the purpose of evaluating products against the health effects requirements of this
OR SALE
Standard. For each substance, the values in the table represent a consensus decision regarding the
selection of the most appropriate assessment.
At the time of publication, the indicated values were valid. These values are subject to change, however,
and the user is encouraged to contact US EPA or Health Canada for the most current values. Some of
these values have been developed using a linear multistage model to predict theoretical excess
carcinogenic risk at low exposure concentrations. Where the database is sufficient and the compound mode
of action can be determined, the US EPA is replacing the default linear multistage model with either a
biologically based cell kinetic multistage model or a MOE analysis. Cancer potency (q1*) values developed
using the linear multistage model may be re-evaluated in the future.
4.3 Joint Peer Review Steering Committee (JPRSC) reconciled criteria
Effective April 17, 2013, CSA Group, NSF International, IAPMO R&T, UL, and the Water Quality Association
use harmonized procedures outlined in Section 3 to develop action levels for unregulated drinking water
contaminants. The JPRSC was established by the aforementioned certifying agencies to reconcile /
consolidate current pass/fail criteria and to harmonize the external per review process for future risk
assessments.
As part of the reconciliation / consolidation process, pass/fail criteria may be adopted following consensus
approval of the members of the JPRSC. Sources of the pass/fail criteria approved by the JPRSC may
include risk assessments submitted by each certifying agency as well as assessments based upon
authoritative agencies (i.e., US EPA, Health Canada). All JPRSC reconciled drinking water criteria are
determined in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.
41
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
and the user is encouraged to contact NSF International for the most current values.
4.4 Externally peer-reviewed drinking water criteria
Where indicated, Table 4.1 contains drinking water criteria for unregulated substances for which a certifying
agency has determined TACs and SPACs in accordance with Section 3 of this Standard. These criteria
have been externally peer-reviewed by the NSF International Health Advisory Board (HAB). The
NSF International HAB provides consensus peer review of documents supporting derivation of drinking
water criteria. The NSF International HAB is composed of expert toxicologists and risk assessors from
government, academia and industry.
4.5 NSF International drinking water criteria (not externally peer-reviewed)
Where indicated, Table 4.1 contains drinking water criteria for unregulated contaminants that have been
identified as extractants from products covered by this Standard. For criteria set by NSF International, the
TAC and SPAC criteria have been determined in accordance with Section 3, however, such criteria are
either in the process of undergoing external peer-review or have not been submitted for external peer
NOT FOR
review. If not submitted for external peer review, these drinking water criteria will be reviewed and updated
as part of the JPRSC reconciliation process.
DISTRIBUTION
4.6 Drinking water criteria based on US EPA guidance concentrations
Where indicated, Table 4.1 contains drinking water criteria for unregulated contaminants for which the
acceptable drinking water concentrations are based on US EPA guidance values, including those in the
OR SALE
US EPA Health Advisory and IRIS databases. A RSC factor has been applied to calculation of the drinking
water criteria when such a factor was not applied as part of the US EPA risk assessment. In the absence
of sufficient information to determine a data-derived RSC factor, a default 20% drinking water contribution
is assumed.
and the user is encouraged to contact US EPA for the most current values. Some of these values have
been developed using a linear multistage model to predict risk at low exposure concentrations and may be
re-evaluated in the future.
4.7 TOE chemical list
Where indicated, Table 4.1 contains the list of chemicals that have been evaluated under the TOE because
either they lack of the minimum data to determine chemical-specific concentrations in accordance with the
requirements of Section 3 (see Section 3.6.1) or they may have sufficient toxicity data available that would
enable chemical-specific risk assessments to be performed but have not been detected at concentrations
exceeding the TOE criteria.
Qualification to the TOE category includes a comprehensive literature search for the particular substance
and consideration of structure-activity relationships.
42
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
Drinking water criteria
MCL/MAC
SPAC STEL Source of supporting documentation Additional
Substance CAS# or TAC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
(mg/L) (mg/L) information
(mg/L)
Derived from the oral RfD on the
US EPA IRIS database with a default
formaldehyde 50-00-0 1 0.1 — —
20% RSC for drinking water.
Verification date: 1990-06-20
p,p’-dichlorodiphenyl US EPA IRIS 10-5/10-6 cancer risk levels.
50-29-3 0.001 0.0001 — —
trichloroethane (DDT) Verification date: 1987-06-24
Health Canada MAC.
— —
NOT FOR
benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.00004 0.000004
Issue date: 2016-01
WQA action level.
benzoic acid, 2,5-dichloro- 50-79-3 0.01 0.01 — —
JPRSC consensus date: 2014-10-15
NSF action level.
benzoic acid, 2,4-dichloro- 50-84-0 0.1 0.01 0.5 —
External peer review date: 2004-04-21
DISTRIBUTION
WQA action level.
benzoic acid, 3,5-dichloro- 51-36-5 0.01 0.01 — —
benzoic acid, 3,4-dichloro- 51-44-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bronopol 52-51-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
US EPA 10-5/10-6 cancer risk levels.
n-nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5 0.000004 0.0000004 — —
benzamide 55-21-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dipropylamine,
56-18-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,3’-diamino-
carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
tributyltin oxide 56-35-9 0.002 0.0002 — —
Agency consensus date: 1997-07-02
benzyltriethylammonium
56-37-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
chloride
Health Canada MAC.
parathion 56-38-2 0.05 0.005 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
WQA action level.
benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.0002 0.00002 —
43
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
WQA action level.
glycerol 56-81-5 2 0.2 — —
NSF action level.
hexadecanoic acid 57-10-3 0.5 0.5 — —
NSF action level.
octadecanoic acid 57-11-4 0.5 0.5 — —
cyanide (as free cyanide) 57-12-5 0.2 0.02 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
NOT FOR
WQA action level.
propylene glycol 57-55-6 200 20 — —
chlordane 57-74-9 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
WQA action level.
cholesterol 57-88-5 0.01 0.01 — —
DISTRIBUTION
lindane 58-89-9 0.0002 0.00002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
Health Canada MAC.
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 58-90-2 0.1 0.01 — —
Issue date: 1987-02
WQA action level.
— —
OR SALE
alpha-tocopheryl acetate 58-95-7 0.02 0.02
1,2-propanediol, UL action level.
59-47-2 0.01 0.01 — —
3-(2-methylphenoxy)- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-01-27
NSF action level.
p-chloro-m-cresol 59-50-7 0.7 0.07 1 —
NSF action level.
N-nitrosomorpholine 59-89-2 0.00004 0.000004 0.00004 —
2-phenylethanol 60-12-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
dimethoate 60-51-5 0.02 0.002 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
Detections shall be
0.0007 0.00007 Health Canada MAC. summed with the
dieldrin 60-57-1 —
(total) (total) Issue date: 1994-10 following chemical:
CAS# 309-00-2.
indole,
61-51-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
3-(2-(diethylamino)ethyl)-
44
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
US EPA IRIS 10-5/10-6 cancer risk levels.
aniline 62-53-3 0.06 0.006 — —
n-nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 0.000006 0.0000006 — —
Health Canada MAC.
carbaryl 63-25-2 0.09 0.009 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
phenylurea 64-10-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
UL action level.
formic acid 64-18-6 0.01 0.01 — —
benzoic acid 65-85-0 30 3 — —
DISTRIBUTION
WQA action level.
hexanal 66-25-1 0.01 0.01 — —
5-hydroxymethylfurfural 67-47-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
methanol 67-56-1 10 1 10 —
JPRSC consensus
WQA action level.
isopropyl alcohol 67-63-0 10 1 40 date for STEL value:
2014-08-13
acetone 67-64-1 6 0.6 — —
Detections shall be
summed with the
0.080 0.008 following chemicals:
chloroform 67-66-3 — 40 CFR § 141.64
(total) (total) CAS# 75-25-2,
CAS# 75-27-4, and
CAS# 124-48-1.
45
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
dimethyl sufone 67-71-0 0.01 0.01 — —
ethane, hexachloro- 67-72-1 0.009 0.0009 — —
NSF action level.
n,n-dimethylformamide 68-12-2 0.09 0.009 0.4 —
Expressed as
NOT FOR
anhydrous Chloramine
T. Detections shall be
benzenesulfonamide, 0.1 0.1 2 NSF action level.
70-55-3 summed with the
4-methyl- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2018-10-23
following chemicals:
CAS# 127-65-1 and
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 7080-50-4.
n-butanol 71-36-3 0.7 0.07 — —
OR SALE
benzene 71-43-2 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
trichloroethane (1,1,1-) 71-55-6 0.2 0.02 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
endrin 72-20-8 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
methoxychlor 72-43-5 0.04 0.004 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
72-54-8 0.001 0.0001 — —
dichloroethane (DDD) Verification date: 1987-06-24
72-55-9 0.001 0.0001 — —
dichloroethylene (DDE) Verification date: 1987-06-24
4-chlorobenzoic acid 74-11-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diphenyl-p- UL action level.
74-31-7 0.01 0.01 — —
phenylenediamine, n,n’- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-01-27
bromomethane 74-83-9 0.01 0.001 — —
46
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Based on the US EPA Lifetime Health
chloromethane 74-87-3 0.03 0.003 — —
Advisory. Issue date: 1989
iodomethane 74-88-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
US EPA Lifetime Drinking Water Health
bromochloromethane 74-97-5 0.09 0.009 — —
WQA action level.
propane 74-98-6 0.01 0.01 — —
JPRSC consensus date: 2014-0813
NOT FOR
chloroethane 75-00-3 0.0004 0.00004 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1992-01-10 —
vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
acetaldehyde 75-07-0 0.01 0.01 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-04-24 —
dichloromethane 75-09-2 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
DISTRIBUTION
diiodomethane 75-11-6 0.003 0.0003 — TOE —
carbon disulfide 75-15-0 0.7 0.07 — —
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with the
bromoform 75-25-2 — 40 CFR § 141.64
CAS# 124-48-1, and
CAS# 67-66-3.
Detections shall be
summed with the
bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 — 40 CFR § 141.64
CAS# 124-48-1, and
CAS# 67-66-3.
WQA action level.
propane, 2-methyl- 75-28-5 0.02 0.02 — —
ethane, 1,1-dichloro- 75-34-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
47
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dichloroethylene (1,1-) 75-35-4 0.007 0.0007 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
ethane, 1,1-difluro- 75-37-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
vinylidine fluoride 75-38-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methane, chlorodifluoro- 75-45-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimethylamine 75-50-3 0.01 0.001 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-11-11 —
NOT FOR
propylene oxide 75-56-9 0.001 0.0001 — —
tert-butylamine 75-64-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
t-butanol 75-65-0 9 0.9 40 —
DISTRIBUTION
trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 2 0.2 — —
dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
methanesulfonic acid 75-75-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Action levels
expressed as TAA
(CAS# 75-85-4).
Detections of TAEE
(CAS# 919-94-8)
and TAME
(CAS# 994-05-8) are to
0.3 0.03 0.4 NSF action level.
tert-amyl alcohol 75-85-4 be multiplied by
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2019-10-22
molecular weight
adjustment factors of
0.76 and 0.86,
respectively, prior to
summation.
Detections shall be
summed with the
48
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 994-05-8 and
CAS# 919-94-8.
propanoic acid,
75-98-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,2-dimethyl-
dalapon 75-99-0 0.2 0.02 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
Detections shall be
NOT FOR
summed with the
CAS# 79-08-3,
CAS# 79-11-8,
CAS# 631-64-1,
DISTRIBUTION
0.060 0.0060 0.060 and CAS# 79-43-6.
trichloroacetic acid 76-03-9 40 CFR § 141.64
(total) (total) (total) Dichloroacetic acid
(CAS# 79-43-6) must
also be evaluated
under its separate
OR SALE
pass/fail criteria
(TAC = 0.007 mg/L,
SPAC = 0.0007 mg/L).
heptachlor 76-44-8 0.0004 0.00004 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 0.05 0.005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
1,3-dibromo-5,5- NSF action level.
77-48-5 60 10 — —
dimethylhydantoin External peer review date: 2010-05-05
Detections shall be
summed with the
propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, CAS# 144-19-4,
0.2 0.02 2 WQA action level.
3-hydroxy-2,2,4- 77-68-9 CAS# 6846-50-0,
trimethylpentyl ester CAS# 25265-77-4,
CAS# 74367-33-2,
CAS# 74367-34-3, and
CAS# 74381-40-1.
49
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
acetyl tributyl citrate 77-90-7 5 0.5 8 —
NSF action level.
triethyl citrate 77-93-0 4 0.4 20 —
IAPMO action level.
tributyl citrate 77-94-1 0.01 0.01 — —
1,3-propanediol, 2-ethyl-2- IAPMO action level.
— —
NOT FOR
77-99-6 0.01 0.01
(hydroxymethyl)- JPRSC consensus date: 2014-08-13
phosphonic acid, ethyl-, IAPMO action level.
78-38-6 0.01 0.01 — —
diethyl ester JPRSC consensus date: 2015-08-21
Detections shall be
summed with the
DISTRIBUTION
triethyl phosphate 78-40-0 following chemicals:
CAS# 126-73-8 and
CAS# 513-08-6.
tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate 78-42-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-isopropyl-2-methyl-2-
OR SALE
propyl-1,3-propanediol 78-44-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dicarbamate
tris-(2-butoxyethyl) NSF action level.
78-51-3 0.4 0.04 2 —
phosphate External peer review date: 2011-05-10
isophorone 78-59-1 0.4 0.04 — —
2,2’-azobisisobutyronitrile 78-67-1 0.01 0.01 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-07-01 —
octadien-3-ol,
78-70-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,7-dimethyl-1,6-
NSF action level.
isoprene 78-79-5 0.05 0.005 0.05 —
isobutyronitrile 78-82-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dichloropropane (1,2-) 78-87-5 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 78-93-3 4 0.4 — —
50
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
propanol, 1-amino-2 - 78-96-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trichloroethane (1,1,2-) 79-00-5 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
Derived from the US EPA IRIS 10-5/10-6
NOT FOR
acrylamide 79-06-1 0.0004 0.00004 — cancer risk levels in the IRIS Toxicological —
Review document. Dated: 2010-03
TT (0.05% TT (0.05%
acrylamide (as a monomer
dosed at dosed at TT = treatment
in drinking water 79-06-1 — 40 CFR § 141.111, 40 CFR § 141.110
1 ppm, or 1 ppm, or technique
treatment polymers)
DISTRIBUTION
equivalent) equivalent)
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 76-03-9,
OR SALE
CAS# 79-11-8,
CAS# 631-64-1, and
0.060 0.0060 0.060 CAS# 79-43-6.
bromoacetic acid 79-08-3 40 CFR § 141.64
(CAS# 79-43-6) must
also be evaluated
under its separate
pass/fail criteria
(TAC = 0.007 mg/L,
SPAC = 0.0007 mg/L).
propanoic acid 79-09-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acrylic acid 79-10-7 4 0.4 — —
0.060 0.0060 0.060 Detections shall be
chloroacetic acid 79-11-8 40 CFR § 141.64
(total) (total) (total) summed with the
51
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 79-08-3,
CAS# 76-03-9,
CAS# 631-64-1, and
CAS# 79-43-6.
Dichloroacetic acid
(CAS# 79-43-6) must
NOT FOR
also be evaluated
under its separate
pass/fail criteria
(TAC = 0.007 mg/L,
SPAC = 0.0007 mg/L).
DISTRIBUTION
WQA action level.
methyl acetate 79-20-9 30 3 30 —
NSF action level.
peroxyacetic acid 79-21-0 7 7 10 —
isobutyric acid 79-31-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
US EPA IRIS 10 /10-6 cancer risk levels.
-5
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.002 0.0002 — —
methacrylic acid 79-41-4 0.05 0.02 — NSF action level. Issue date 1993-05-25 —
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 79-08-3,
CAS# 76-03-9,
US EPA IRIS 10-5/10-6
CAS# 631-64-1, and
dichloroacetic acid 79-43-6 0.007 0.0007 — upper bound risk levels.
CAS# 79-11-8.
Dichloroacetic acid
(CAS# 79-43-6) must
also be evaluated
under its separate
pass/fail criteria
52
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
(TAC = 0.007 mg/L,
SPAC = 0.0007 mg/L).
pempidine 79-55-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
bisphenol A 80-05-7 0.1 0.01 0.2 —
4,4'-dichlorodiphenyl
80-07-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulfone
NOT FOR
toluenesulfonamide,
80-39-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-ethyl-4-
peroxide, bis(1-methyl-1- UL action level.
80-43-3 0.05 0.01 — —
phenylethyl)- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-01-27
phenol, UL action level.
DISTRIBUTION
80-46-6 0.01 0.01 — —
4-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)- JPRSC consensus date: 2014-11-19
propanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-
80-55-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methyl-ethyl ester
OR SALE
methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 10 1 — —
saccharin 81-07-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acetophenone, 4'-tert-butyl- UL action level.
81-14-1 0.01 0.01 — —
2',6'-dimethyl-3',5'-dinitro- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-01-27
naphthalene-1,8- CSA action level.
81-84-5 0.01 0.01 — —
dicarboxylic anhydride JPRSC consensus date: 3/09/2016
pentachloronitrobenzene 82-68-8 0.02 0.002 — —
acenaphthene 83-32-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1H-inden-1-one, UL action level.
83-33-0 0.01 0.01 — —
2,3-dihydro- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-01-27
53
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic
WQA action level.
acid, 1-butyl 2-cyclohexyl 84-64-0 0.01 0.01 — —
ester
WQA action level.
anthraquinone 84-65-1 0.008 0.0008 — —
— —
NOT FOR
diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 6 0.6
NSF action level.
diisobutyl phthalate 84-69-5 0.8 0.08 — —
DISTRIBUTION
di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 0.7 0.07 — —
phenanthrene 85-01-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
CSA action level.
OR SALE
isoindole-1,3-dione 85-41-6 0.01 0.01 — —
Detections shall be
summed with the
hexahydrophthalic 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level.
85-42-7 CAS# 85-43-8,
anhydride (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2012-10-17
CAS# 11070-44-3,
CAS# 25134-21-8, and
CAS# 25550-51-0.
Detections shall be
summed with the
tetrahydrophthalic 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level.
85-43-8 CAS# 85-42-7,
CAS# 11070-44-3,
CAS# 25134-21-8, and
CAS# 25550-51-0.
54
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
phthalic anhydride 85-44-9 10 1 — —
phenol, 4,4'-
UL action level.
butylidenebis(2-(1,1- 85-60-9 0.01 0.01 — —
dimethylethyl)-5-methyl-
NOT FOR
butylbenzyl phthalate 85-68-7 1 0.1 — —
DISTRIBUTION
WQA action level.
acid, butyl 2-ethylhexyl 85-69-8 0.01 0.01 — —
ester
Detections shall be
summed with other
0.05 0.05 0.8 NSF action level. chemicals under the
OR SALE
1,3-diethyldiphenylurea 85-98-3
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-17 alkyl-substituted urea
class-based
evaluation level.
n-nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 0.07 0.007 — —
azinphos-methyl 86-50-0 0.02 0.002 — Issue date: 1986-02 —
WQA action level.
fluorene 86-73-7 0.3 0.03 — —
carbazole 86-74-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
1(3H)-isobenzofuranone 87-41-2 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
benzene, 1,2,3-trichloro- 87-61-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol, 2,6-dichloro- 87-65-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-butanediene, WQA action level.
87-68-3 0.004 0.0004 — —
hexachloro- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-05-20
55
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
hexabromobenzene 87-82-1 0.01 0.001 — —
pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.001 0.0001 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
Health Canada MAC.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 88-06-2 0.005 0.0005 — —
Issue date: 1987-02
NOT FOR
2-furancarboxylic acid 88-14-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-chloro-2-
88-16-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(trifluoromethyl)-
o-toluenesulfonamide 88-19-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
phenol, 2,2’-methylenebis
88-24-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(6-tert-butyl)-4-ethyl-
benzyl alcohol, 3,5-di-tert-
88-26-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butyl-4-hydroxy-
phenol, 2-nitro- 88-75-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-
(dimethylaminomethyl) 88-27-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol
dinoseb 88-85-7 0.007 0.0007 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
NSF action level.
phthalic acid, o- 88-99-3 10 1 — —
benzeneacetic acid, WQA action level.
89-51-0 0.01 0.01 — —
2-carboxy- JPRSC consensus date: 2016-06-28
NSF action level.
2-methylbenzyl alcohol 89-95-2 0.01 0.01 — —
2-ethylphenol 90-00-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
UL action level.
benzaldehyde, 2-hydroxy- 90-02-8 0.01 0.01 — —
2-methoxy-phenol 90-05-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 0.05 0.05 NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-09-16 —
56
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
2-phenylphenol 90-43-7 7 0.7 20 —
phenol,
2,4,6-tris(dimethylamino- 90-72-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl)-
NSF action level.
benzhydrol 91-01-0 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
NOT FOR
1,2-benzenedicarbonitrile 91-15-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
naphthalene 91-20-3 0.1 0.01 — —
DISTRIBUTION
quinoline 91-22-5 0.0001 0.00001 — —
methylcoumarin,
91-44-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
7-diethylamino-4-
quinoline, 6-ethoxy-1,2- WQA action level.
OR SALE
91-53-2 0.01 0.01 — —
dihydro-2,2,4-trimethyl- JPRSC consensus date: 2016-06-28
2-methyl naphthalene 91-57-6 0.03 0.003 — —
WQA action level.
2-chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 0.6 0.06 — —
diethylaniline 91-66-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
benzoguanamine 91-76-9 0.01 0.001 0.2 —
3,3’-dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.0008 0.00008 — —
WQA action level.
biphenyl 92-52-4 0.01 0.01 — —
morpholine, 4-phenyl- 92-53-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
57
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
phenothiazine 92-84-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzidine 92-87-5 0.000002 0.0000002 — —
propanol, phenyl 93-54-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propanone, 1-phenyl-1- 93-55-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
CSA action level.
styrene glycol 93-56-1 0.01 0.01 — —
NOT FOR
WQA action level.
methyl benzoate 93-58-3 0.01 0.01 — —
formamide,
93-61-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-methyl-n-phenyl-
DISTRIBUTION
fenoprop 93-72-1 0.05 0.005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
benzanilide 93-98-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzoic acid, 4-amino, NSF action level.
94-09-7 0.01 0.01 — —
ethyl ester JPRSC consensus date: 2019-09-18
OR SALE
NSF action level.
propylparaben 94-13-3 0.01 0.01 — —
butylparaben 94-26-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
triethyleneglycol
94-28-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
di(2-ethylhexanoate)
phenetidine, o- 94-70-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,4-D 94-75-7 0.07 0.007 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
WQA action level.
1,3-hexanediol, 2-ethyl- 94-96-2 0.2 0.02 — —
S,S-di(diethylaminothioxo-
95-05-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl)sulfide
indene 95-13-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzotriazole, 1,2,3- 95-14-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
benzothiazole 95-16-9 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
58
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2-benzothiazolesulfen- UL action level.
95-33-0 0.01 0.01 — —
amide, n-cyclohexyl- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-05-20
1-bromo-2-methylbenzene 95-46-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
0.09 0.009 Health Canada MAC.
o-xylene 95-47-6 — following chemicals:
(total) (total) Issue date: 2014-08
CAS# 106-42-3 and
NOT FOR
CAS# 108-38-3.
2-methylphenol 95-48-7 0.4 0.04 — —
DISTRIBUTION
Based on the oral RfD and lifetime
drinking water health advisory in the
2-chlorotoluene 95-49-8 0.1 0.01 — —
US EPA 2011 Edition of the Drinking
Water Standards and Health Advisories.
— —
OR SALE
dichlorobenzene o- 95-50-1 0.6 0.06 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61
NSF action level.
o-toluidine 95-53-4 0.02 0.002 0.02 —
bromophenol, 2- 95-56-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. high flash
trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4- 95-63-6
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
benzenamine, WQA action level.
95-64-7 0.05 0.005 — —
3,4-dimethyl- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-05-20
3,4-dimethylphenol 95-65-8 0.007 0.0007 — —
59
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2-chloro-1,4-
95-72-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylbenzene
2,4-dichlorotoluene 95-73-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
4-chloro-1,2- NSF action level.
95-83-0 0.2 0.02 0.2 —
benzenediamine External peer review date: 2004-04-20
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
DISTRIBUTION
tetramethylbenzene, 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. high flash
95-93-2
1,2,4,5- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
OR SALE
CSA action level.
phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro- 95-95-4 0.7 0.07 — —
menthane, 1,2:8,9-diepoxy- 96-08-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
7,8-oxide styrene 96-09-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8 0.0002 0.00002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
(1,2-)
pentane, 3-methyl 96-14-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
US EPA Lifetime Drinking Water Health
1,2,3-trichloropropane 96-18-4 0.04 0.004 — —
Detections shall be
0.01 0.004 0.01 NSF action level. summed with the
1,3,-dichlroro-2-propanol 96-23-1
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2014-10-21 following chemical:
CAS# 616-23-9.
3-monochloro-
96-24-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2,propanediol
60
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea, N,N'-dimethyl- 96-31-1
class-based
evaluation level.
methyl acrylate 96-33-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
WQA action level.
methylcyclopentane 96-37-7 0.01 0.01 — —
ethylene thiourea 96-45-7 0.0006 0.00006 — —
DISTRIBUTION
NSF action level.
γ-butyrolactone 96-48-0 4 0.4 4 —
4,4’-thiobis-
96-66-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(6-t-butyl-o-cresol)
OR SALE
NSF action level.
phenol, 2,4-di-tert-butyl 96-76-4 0.1 0.01 2 —
di-o-tolylguanidine, 1,3- 97-39-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5-chloro-2,4-
97-50-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyoxybenzamine
2-propenoic acid, IAPMO action level.
97-63-2 0.01 0.01 — —
2-methyl-, ethyl ester JPRSC consensus date: 2016-02-10
bis(dimethylthiocarbamoyl)
97-74-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulfide
isobutyl isobutyrate 97-85-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isobutyl methacrylate 97-86-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methyl-propanoic acid,
97-87-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butyl ester
ethylene glycol 0.05 0.05 2 WQA action level. Detections shall be
97-90-5
dimethacrylate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-10-20 summed with the
61
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 109-16-0,
CAS# 109-17-1, and
CAS# 2358-84-1.
tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol 97-99-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
furanmethanol, 2- 98-00-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
NSF action level.
furfural 98-01-1 0.2 0.02 3 —
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
DISTRIBUTION
t-butylbenzene 98-06-6
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
OR SALE
benzotrichloride 98-07-7 0.00003 0.000003 — —
benzene, 1-chloro-3-
98-15-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(trifluoromethyl)-
4-t-butyl-2-chlorophenol 98-28-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexanol, 4-tert-butyl- 98-52-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
p-tert-butylphenol 98-54-4 0.5 0.05 7 —
terpineol, alpha- 98-55-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
4-chlorobenzo-trifluoride 98-56-6 0.3 0.03 2 —
IAPMO action level.
benzoic acid, 4-tert-butyl- 98-73-7 0.01 0.01 — —
isopropylbenzene Derived from the oral RfD on the
98-82-8 0.7 0.07 — —
(cumene) US EPA IRIS database with a default
62
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
styrene, alpha-methyl- 98-83-9 0.006 0.0006 0.006 —
benzyl alcohol, UL action level.
98-85-1 0.7 0.07 — —
alpha methyl JPRSC consensus date: 2013-10-29
NSF action level.
—
NOT FOR
acetophenone 98-86-2 0.2 0.02 1
cyclohexanamine,
98-94-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N,N-dimethyl-
— —
DISTRIBUTION
nitrobenzene 98-95-3 0.01 0.001
benzoic acid, m-methyl- 99-04-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
1,3,5-trinitrobenzene 99-35-4 0.2 0.02 — —
NSF action level.
methylparaben 99-76-3 0.01 0.01 — —
cyclohexane,
99-82-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-isopropyl-4-methyl-
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
isopropyltoluene 99-87-6
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
acetophenone, 4’-hydroxy- 99-93-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzoic acid, p-methyl- 99-94-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
63
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
UL action level.
aniline, 4-nitro- 100-01-6 0.04 0.004 — —
4-nitrophenol 100-02-7 0.06 0.006 0.06 —
NSF action level.
—
NOT FOR
terephthalic acid 100-21-0 3 0.3 3
diethylaminoethanol 100-37-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.14 0.014 — —
Issue date: 2014-08
— —
DISTRIBUTION
styrene 100-42-5 0.1 0.01 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61
benzyl chloride 100-44-7 0.002 0.0002 — —
cyclohexene, 4-cyano
also (1-cyano-3- 100-45-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
cyclohexene)
benzylamine 100-46-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzonitrile 100-47-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-cyclohexene-1-
100-50-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
carboxaldehyde
UL action level.
benzyl alcohol 100-51-6 30 3 — —
NSF action level.
benzaldehyde 100-52-7 40 4 50 —
cyclohexanamine,
100-60-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-methyl-
methoxybenzene 100-66-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyridine, 2-ethyl- 100-71-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
N-nitrosopiperidine 100-75-4 0.00005 0.000005 0.00005 —
64
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-
100-79-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-methanol
benzene,
100-80-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-ethenyl-3-methyl-
hexamethylenetetramine 100-97-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
guanidine, 1,2,3-triphenyl- 101-01-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
3-chlorodiphenylamine 101-17-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
UL action level.
hydroxydiphenylamine, 3- 101-18-8 0.01 0.01 — —
UL action level.
triallyl cyanurate 101-37-1 0.05 0.05 — —
DISTRIBUTION
urea,
101-42-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1-dimethyl-3-phenyl-
phenylenediamine,
101-54-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-phenyl-p-
4,4’-methylene bis US EPA IRIS 10-5/10-6cancer risk levels.
— —
OR SALE
101-61-1 0.008 0.0008
(N,N’-dimethyl) aniline Verification date: 1989-04-05
diphenylamine, 4,4’-dioctyl- 101-67-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylene diphenyl
101-68-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diisocyanate
(isopropylamino)diphenyl- UL action level.
101-72-4 0.01 0.01 — —
amine, 4- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-11-18
NSF action level.
4,4’-methylene dianiline 101-77-9 0.0008 0.00008 0.0008 —
1,1’-methylene-bis-
101-81-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene
cyclohexanamine,
101-83-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-cyclohexyl-
benzene, 1,1-oxybis- 101-84-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethylbenzene acetate 101-97-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
65
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzenemethanamine,
n-methyl-n- 102-05-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(phenylmethyl)-
diphenyl guanidine,
102-06-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3- (or n,n-)
urea, 1,3-diphenyl- 102-07-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,4-dichlorophenyl
NOT FOR
102-36-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isocyanate
triallylamine 102-70-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
triethanolamine 102-71-6 3 0.3 20 —
DISTRIBUTION
triacetin 102-76-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzothiazole, UL action level.
102-77-2 0.01 0.01 — —
2-(morpholinothio)- JPRSC consensus date: 2016-03-09
WQA action level.
1-butanamine, N,N-dibutyl- 102-82-9 0.01 0.01 — —
OR SALE
ethylhexyl acetate, 2- 103-09-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-ethylhexyl acrylate 103-11-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 103-23-1 0.4 0.04 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
azobenzene 103-33-3 0.003 0.0003 — —
dibenzylamine 103-49-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
dibenzyl ether 103-50-4 0.4 0.04 5 —
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
n-propylbenzene 103-65-1
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
66
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
aniline, N-ethyl- 103-69-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
formamide, n-phenyl- 103-70-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl isothiocyanate 103-72-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzylamine,
103-83-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N,N-dimethyl-
2,2’-p-
104-38-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
phenylenedioxydiethanol
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
n-butylbenzene 104-51-8
DISTRIBUTION
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
propanal, 3-phenyl 104-53-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with the
4 0.4 WQA action level.
2-propen-1-ol, 3-phenyl 104-54-1 — CAS# 104-55-2,
(total) (total) JPRSC consensus date: 2017-11-08
CAS# 140-10-3,
CAS# 621-82-9, and
CAS# 14371-10-9.
Detections shall be
summed with the
cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 — CAS# 104-54-1,
CAS# 140-10-3,
CAS# 621-82-9, and
CAS# 14371-10-9.
dihydro-5-pentyl-2(3H)- IAPMO action level.
104-61-0 1 0.1 — —
furanone JPRSC consensus date: 2018-08-08
67
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
ethane, 1,2-diphenoxy- 104-66-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diethyleneglycol
104-68-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
monophenyl ether
NSF action level.
2-ethylhexanol 104-76-7 0.8 0.08 3 —
NSF action level.
benzaldehyde, 4-methyl- 104-87-0 0.01 0.01 — —
NOT FOR
diethyl malonate 105-53-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propanoic acid, ethyl ester 105-37-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acetal 105-57-7 0.01 0.01 0.01 NSF action level. Issue date: —
NSF action level.
DISTRIBUTION
diethyl carbonate 105-58-8 0.5 0.05 1 —
methyldiethanolamine, n- 105-59-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
caprolactam 105-60-2 4 0.4 — —
OR SALE
2,4-dimethylphenol 105-67-9 0.1 0.01 — —
UL action level.
dibutylmaleate 105-76-0 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
octadecanoic acid,
2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl 106-11-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ester
hydroxystearic acid 106-14-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
geraniol 106-24-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,4-dibromobenzene 106-37-6 0.07 0.007 — —
68
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzene, 1-bromo-4-methyl 106-38-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bromophenol, 4- 106-41-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
p-xylene 106-42-3 — following chemicals:
CAS# 95-47-6 and
NOT FOR
CAS# 108-38-3.
4-chlorotoluene 106-43-4 0.1 0.01 — —
DISTRIBUTION
Detections shall be
0.4 0.04 6 WQA action level. summed with the
p-cresol 106-44-5
CAS# 108-39-4.
dichlorobenzene p- 106-46-7 0.075 0.0075 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
OR SALE
4-chlorophenol 106-48-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
para-toluidine 106-49-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenediamine, 1,4- 106-50-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-propanol,
2-(2-hydroxypropoxy)- 106-62-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isomer
NSF action level.
dimethyl succinate 106-65-0 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
hexanoic acid, methyl ester 106-70-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
decanedioic acid, dimethyl NSF action level.
106-79-6 0.01 0.01 — —
ester JPRSC consensus date: 2018-12-11
NSF action level.
1,2-epoxybutane 106-88-7 0.06 0.006 0.06 —
US EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory
epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 0.04 0.004 — 10-5/10-6 cancer risk levels. —
Issue date: 1987
69
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
epichlorohydrin TT (0.01% TT (0.01%
(as a monomer in dosed at dosed at TT = treatment
106-89-8 — 40 CFR § 141.111, 40 CFR § 141.110
drinking water treatment 10 ppm, or 10 ppm, or technique
polymers) equivalent) equivalent)
ethylene dibromide (EDB) 106-93-4 0.00005 0.000005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
UL action level.
1,3-butadiene 106-99-0 0.1 0.01 — —
NOT FOR
acrolein 107-02-8 0.004 0.0004 — —
WQA action level.
DISTRIBUTION
allyl chloride 107-05-1 0.3 0.03 — —
dichloroethane (1,2-) 107-06-2 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.0006 0.00006 — —
OR SALE
NSF action level.
ethylenediamine 107-15-3 10 2 40 —
ethylene glycol 107-21-1 10 1 — —
NSF action level.
hexylene glycol 107-41-5 0.01 0.01 — —
2,4,4-trimethyl-2-
107-45-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentylamine
tetradecamethylcyclohepta-
107-50-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
siloxane
NSF action level.
butylacrylamine, tert- 107-58-4 0.01 0.01 — —
pentane, 2-methyl 107-83-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-butanediol 107-88-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
70
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
WQA action level.
butanoic acid 107-92-6 0.2 0.02 — —
butenoic acid, trans-2- 107-93-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Expressed as PGME.
propylene glycol 2 0.2 3 NSF action level. Detections shall be
107-98-2
monomethyl ether (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2018-04-10 summed with PGMEA
CAS# 108-65-6.
NOT FOR
ethanol, 2-(dimethylamino)- 108-01-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
vinyl acetate 108-05-4 0.02 0.002 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1991-05-03 —
1,3-dimethyl-n-butylamine 108-09-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl isobutyl ketone NSF action level.
DISTRIBUTION
108-10-1 7 0.7 100 —
(MIBK) External peer review date: 2005-10-06
CSA action level.
diisopropylamine 108-18-9 0.01 0.01 — —
acetic acid, 1-methylethyl IAPMO action level.
108-21-4 0.01 0.01 — —
OR SALE
maleic anhydride 108-31-6 0.7 0.07 — —
Detections shall be
summed with the
m-xylene 108-38-3 — following chemicals:
CAS# 95-47-6 and
CAS# 106-42-3.
Detections shall be
0.4 0.04 6 WQA action level. summed with the
m-cresol 108-39-4
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-05-05 following chemicals:
CAS# 106-44-5.
3-chlorophenol 108-43-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-toluidine 108-44-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
71
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
m-phenylenediamine 108-45-2 0.04 0.004 — —
pyridine, 2,4-dimethyl- 108-47-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Expressed as PGME.
propylene glycol
2 0.2 3 NSF action level. Detections shall be
monomethyl ether 108-65-5
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2018-04-10 summed with PGME
acetate
CAS# 107-98-2.
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
summed with
chemicals under the
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
OR SALE
class-based
evaluation level.
pyridine, 2,4,6-trimethyl- 108-75-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
melamine 108-78-1 3 0.3 3 —
cyclohexane, methyl- 108-87-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
toluene 108-88-3 0.06 0.006 — —
Issue date: 2014-08
pyridine, 4-methyl- 108-89-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
monochlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.1 0.01 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
cyclohexylamine 108-91-8 1 0.1 — —
cyclohexanol 108-93-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
72
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
cyclohexanone 108-94-1 30 3 40 —
phenol 108-95-2 2 0.2 — —
NOT FOR
morpholine, methyl- 109-02-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyrazine, 2-methyl- 109-08-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
summed with the
CAS# 97-90-5,
CAS# 109-17-1, and
triethyleneglycol 0.05 0.05 2 WQA action level. CAS# 2358-84-1.
OR SALE
109-16-0
dimethacrylate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-10-20 Action level confirmed
through updated
external peer review of
CAS# 109-16-0.
External peer review
date: 2019-10-22.
Detections shall be
summed with the
tetraethyleneglycol 0.05 0.05 2 WQA action level. following chemicals:
109-17-1
dimethacrylate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-10-20 CAS# 97-90-5,
CAS# 109-16-0, and
CAS# 2358-84-1.
n-butyl-n-butyrate 109-21-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
decanedioic acid, dibutyl IAPMO action level.
109-43-3 0.01 0.01 — —
n-pentanoic acid 109-52-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
73
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
acetic acid, propyl ester 109-60-4 0.01 0.01 — —
butanenitrile 109-74-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-hydroxypropane nitrile 109-78-4 0.01 0.01 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1997-09-03 —
Derived from the oral RfD on the US EPA
IRIS database with a default 20% relative
tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 6 0.6 — —
NOT FOR
source contribution for drinking water.
dimethylhexane-2,5-diol, CSA action level.
110-03-2 0.01 0.01 — —
2,5- JPRSC consensus date: 2018-05-02
NSF action level.
di-t-butyl peroxide 110-05-4 0.05 0.05 0.09 —
DISTRIBUTION
methyl isoamyl ketone NSF action level.
110-12-3 0.06 0.006 0.8 —
(MIAK) External peer review date: 2002-04-25
NSF action level.
hexane-2,5-dione 110-13-4 0.01 0.01 — —
OR SALE
butanedioic acid 110-15-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
maleic acid 110-16-7 0.7 0.07 4 NSF action level. Issue date: —
NSF action level.
tetramethylethylenediamine 110-18-9 0.01 0.01 — —
WQA action level.
isobutyl acetate 110-19-0 0.01 0.01 — —
decanoic acid, methyl ester 110-42-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexane 110-54-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentane, 1-amino 110-58-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentanenitrile 110-59-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
1,4-diaminobutane 110-60-1 2 0.2 9 —
NSF action level.
1,4-butanediol 110-63-4 0.6 0.06 2 —
cyclohexene 110-83-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
74
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
pyridine 110-86-1 0.007 0.0007 — —
NSF action level.
1,3,5-trioxane 110-88-3 0.7 0.07 3 —
piperidine 110-89-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
WQA action level.
2-propanol, 1,1-oxybis- 110-98-5 0.01 0.01 — —
squalene 111-02-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
palmitic acid, n-butyl ester 111-06-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
octanoate, methyl- 111-11-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
heptanoic acid, n- 111-14-8 0.2 0.02 — —
ethylene glycol monoethyl
111-15-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ether acetate
OR SALE
tetramethyl hexanediamine 111-18-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
sebacic acid 111-20-6 200 20 200 —
NSF action level.
1-hexanol 111-27-3 2 0.2 30 —
gutaraldehyde 111-30-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butyl isocyanate, n- 111-36-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
diethylenetriamine 111-40-0 0.3 0.03 1 —
NSF action level.
diethanolamine 111-42-2 0.1 0.01 0.5 —
bis(chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 0.0003 0.00003 — —
ethyl octadecanoate 111-61-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
heptyl aldehyde, n- 111-71-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
75
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
ethylene glycol monobutyl US EPA IRIS database with a default
111-76-2 4 0.4 — —
ether 20% RSC for drinking water.
diethylene glycol WQA action level.
111-77-3 0.01 0.01 — —
monomethyl ether JPRSC consensus date: 2018-04-30
methyl laurate 111-82-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
ethanol, 2-(2- WQA action level.
111-90-0 1 0.1 — —
ethoxyethoxy)- JPRSC consensus date: 2015-11-18
bis(2-chloroethoxy)
111-91-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methane
— —
DISTRIBUTION
dibutylamine 111-92-2 0.01 0.01 NSF action level. Issue date: 1995-08-19
propanenitrile, 3,3’-thiobis- 111-97-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nonanoic acid, n- 112-05-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butylglycol acetate 112-07-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
2-undecanone 112-12-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(2-ethoxyethoxy) ethyl WQA action level.
112-15-2 0.4 0.04 8 —
acetate External peer review date: 2014-04-23
dodecylamine, N,N-
112-18-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyl-
NSF action level.
2-(hexyloxy)ethanol 112-25-4 0.01 0.01 — —
NSF action level.
triethylene glycol 112-27-6 10 1 10 —
formic acid, octyl ester 112-32-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diethylene glycol mono-n- NSF action level.
112-34-5 0.6 0.06 8 —
butyl ether External peer review date: 2010-10-05
NSF action level.
undecanoic acid 112-37-8 0.5 0.5 — —
methyl palmitate 112-39-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
76
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
WQA action level.
dodecanol 112-53-8 0.05 0.05 0.9 —
dodecanal 112-54-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-dodecanethiol 112-55-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl stearate 112-61-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecenoic acid, 9(Z)-,
112-62-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
methyl ester
1-tridecanol 112-70-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
IAPMO action level.
docosenamide (erucamide) 112-84-5 0.2 0.02 — —
octadecene, 1- 112-88-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
oleanitrile 112-91-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
icosane 112-95-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dothiepin 113-53-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
—
OR SALE
propene 115-07-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
NSF action level.
isobutylene 115-11-7 0.4 0.04 0.6 —
Detections shall be
2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol 115-18-4
CAS# 763-32-6.
3-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-
115-22-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butanone
propanediol, 2-ethyl-2-
115-84-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butyl-1,3-
triphenylphosphate 115-86-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Total combined
detections of
aldicarb 116-06-3 0.003 0.0003 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 CAS# 116-06-3,
CAS# 1646-87-3, and
CAS# 1646-88-4 shall
77
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
not exceed
0.007 mg/L (TAC)
or 0.0007 (SPAC).
hexafluoropropene 116-15-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7 0.006 0.0006 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
(PAE)
IAPMO action level.
NOT FOR
bis(2-butoxyethyl)phthalate 117-83-9 0.01 0.01 — —
n-ethyl-1-naphthalenamide 118-44-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-dichloro-5,5- NSF action level.
118-52-5 40 7 — —
DISTRIBUTION
hydroxymethylpyrone 118-71-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.001 0.0001 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
benzoic acid, o-methyl- 118-90-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
2’-hydroxyacetophenone 118-93-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
-5
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene 118-96-7 0.01 0.001 — —
WQA action level.
methyl salicylate 119-36-8 0.01 0.01 — —
methylene bis(4-methyl-6-
119-47-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tertbutyl-phenol), 2,2’
NSF action level.
benzophenone 119-61-9 0.3 0.03 2 —
anthracene 120-12-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethylparaben 120-47-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diethylene glycol NSF action level.
120-55-8 2 0.2 8 —
dibenzoate External peer review date: 2015-05-05
NSF action level.
dimethyl terephthalate 120-61-6 3 0.3 3 —
78
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzothiazole, 2-methyl- 120-75-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) 120-82-1 0.07 0.007 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
NSF action level.
dichlorophenol, 2,4- 120-83-2 0.05 0.005 0.08 —
cyclopentanone 120-92-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
NOT FOR
0.0005 0.00005 US EPA IRIS 10-5/10-6 cancer risk levels. summed with the
2,4-dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 —
(total) (total) Verification date: 1989-05-03 following chemical:
CAS# 606-20-2.
benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy-
121-33-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-methoxy (vanillin)
DISTRIBUTION
WQA action level.
triethylamine 121-44-8 0.1 0.01 3 —
3-hydroxyacetophenone 121-71-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
malathion 121-75-5 0.19 0.019 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
OR SALE
WQA action level.
isophthalic acid 121-91-5 0.6 0.06 9 —
acetophenone, 4-methyl 122-00-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
triisopropanolamine 122-20-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
simazine 122-34-9 0.004 0.0004 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
diphenylamine, 4-hydroxy- 122-37-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diphenylamine 122-39-4 0.2 0.02 — —
NSF action level.
phenyl glycidyl ether 122-60-1 0.006 0.0006 0.1 —
sebacate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 122-62-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
-5
1,2-diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 0.0005 0.00005 — —
79
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
benzeneacetaldehyde 122-78-1 0.01 0.01 — —
ethanol, 2-phenoxy- 122-99-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexanal, 2-ethyl- 123-05-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
4-ethylphenol 123-07-9 0.05 0.05 1 —
NOT FOR
NSF action level.
4-methoxy-benzaldehyde 123-11-5 6 0.6 30 —
succinic acid, diethyl ester 123-25-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
hydroquinone 123-31-9 2 0.2 4 —
DISTRIBUTION
NSF action level.
diacetone alcohol 123-42-2 3 0.3 10 —
NSF action level.
acetone, acetyl 123-54-6 0.1 0.01 0.6 —
propanoic anhydride 123-62-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
trioxane, 1,3,5-trimethyl- 123-63-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyrrolidine 123-75-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-oxopentanoic acid 123-76-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
n-butyl acetate 123-86-4 1 0.1 20 —
1,4-dioxane 123-91-1 0.004 0.0004 0.004 —
octadecanoic acid, 2,3- CSA action level.
123-94-4 0.01 0.01 — —
dihydroxypropyl ester JPRSC consensus date: 2018-11-05
stearic acid, butyl ester 123-95-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
adipic acid 124-04-9 30 3 100 —
NSF action level.
hexamethylene-diamine 124-09-4 10 1 20 —
80
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
octanal 124-13-0 0.01 0.01 — —
butyl carbitol acetate 124-17-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nonanal 124-19-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dodecanamine, 1- 124-22-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetradecanal 124-25-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
octadecanamide 124-26-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylamine 124-40-3 1.2 0.12 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1998-11-06 —
Detections shall be
summed with the
DISTRIBUTION
chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 — 40 CFR § 141.64
CAS# 75-27-4, and
CAS# 67-66-3.
2-amino-2-methylpropanol 124-68-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
1,3-propanediol,2,2- UL action level.
126-30-7 0.01 0.01 — —
dimethyl JPRSC consensus date: 2016-10-12
tetramethylene sulfone 126-33-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
tributyl phosphate 126-73-8 following chemicals:
CAS# 78-40-0 and
CAS# 513-08-6.
tetramethyldec-5-yne-4,7- NSF action level.
126-86-3 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
diol, 2,4,7,9- External peer review date: 2017-10-17
tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
NSF action level.
N,N-dimethyl-acetamide 127-19-5 2 0.2 2 —
diphenyl sulfone 127-63-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
0.1 0.1 2 NSF action level. Expressed as
chloramine-T 127-65-1
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2018-10-23 anhydrous chloramine
81
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
summed with the
CAS# 70-55-3 and
CAS# 7080-50-4.
2,6-di-t-butyl-4-methyl NSF action level.
128-39-2 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
phenol External peer review date: 2012-10-17
NOT FOR
pyrene 129-00-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
dihydroxybenzophenone 131-56-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
IAPMO action level.
oxybenzone 131-57-7 0.01 0.01 — —
captan 133-06-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl anthranilate 134-20-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diphenylethanedione, 1,2- 134-81-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
benzaldehyde, 3,5-
134-96-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethoxy-4-hydroxy-
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
diethylbenzene, 1,2- 135-01-3
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
naphthylenamine,
135-88-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-phenyl-2-
Detections shall be
0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. summed with
phenylbutane, 2- 135-98-8
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 chemicals under the
high flash
82
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
dimethyl-p-benzoquinone,
137-18-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,5-
acetamide,
NOT FOR
2-(diethylamino)-N- 137-58-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-
bis(2-ethylhexyl) IAPMO action level.
137-89-3 0.01 0.01 — —
isophthalate JPRSC consensus date: 2019-02-20
2-hydroxy-propanoic acid,
—
DISTRIBUTION
138-22-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
butyl ester
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 8001-54-5,
OR SALE
myristyl dimethylbenzyl 3 0.3 5 NSF action level. CAS# 53516-76-0,
139-08-2
ammonium chloride (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2014-10-21 CAS# 61789-71-7,
CAS# 63449-41-2,
CAS# 68391-01-5,
CAS# 68424-85-1, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
Health Canada MAC.
nitrilotriacetic acid 139-13-9 0.4 0.04 — —
Issue date: 1990-01
diphenyl sulfide 139-66-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
trans-cinnamic acid 140-10-3 — CAS# 104-54-1,
CAS# 104-55-2,
CAS# 621-82-9, and
CAS# 14371-10-9.
83
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzyl acetate 140-11-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
piperazine, 1-(2-
140-31-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
aminoethyl)-
ethyl acrylate 140-88-5 0.01 0.001 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1992-01-28 —
furaric acid, bis(2-
141-02-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethylhexyl) ester
NOT FOR
bis(2-(2-
NSF action level.
butoxyethoxy)ethyl) 141-17-3 0.6 0.06 8 —
adipate
NSF action level.
bis(2-butoxyethyl) adipate 141-18-4 0.7 0.07 0.7 —
DISTRIBUTION
NSF action level.
butyl acrylate 141-32-2 0.01 0.01 — —
Issue date: 1995-12-13
NSF action level.
ethanolamine 141-43-5 0.3 0.03 4 —
WQA action level.
ethyl acetate 141-78-6 5 0.5 — —
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
diethylbenzene, 1,3- 141-93-5
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
ethyl acetoacetate 141-97-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
IAPMO action level.
glyceryl monolaurate 142-18-7 0.01 0.01 — —
WQA action level.
1,3-dichloropropane 142-28-9 0.1 0.01 — —
hexyne-2,5-diol, 2,5- NSF action level.
142-30-3 0.01 0.01 0.2 —
dimethyl-3- JPRSC consensus date: 2020-02-12
84
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
hexanoic acid, n- 142-62-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oleate, n-butyl- 142-77-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methacrylate, lauryl- 142-90-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
palmitate, isopropyl- 142-91-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
n-dodecanoic acid 143-07-7 0.5 0.5 — —
NOT FOR
ethanol, 2-(2-(2- WQA action level.
143-22-6 0.05 0.05 — —
butoxyethoxy)ethoxy)- JPRSC consensus date: 2016-05-18
tetraethylene glycol
143-24-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyl ether
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
summed with the
CAS# 77-68-9,
pentanediol, 2,2,4- 0.2 0.02 2 WQA action level.
144-19-4 CAS# 6846-50-0,
trimethyl-1,3- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-26
CAS# 25265-77-4,
OR SALE
CAS# 74367-33-2,
CAS# 74367-34-3, and
CAS# 74381-40-1.
endothall 145-73-3 0.1 0.01 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
sodium US EPA IRIS database with a default
148-18-5 0.2 0.02 — —
diethyldithiocarbamate 20% RSC for drinking water.
vanillin, o- 148-53-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
thiabendazole 148-79-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
2-mercaptobenzothiazole 149-30-4 0.02 0.002 0.02 —
NSF action level.
2-ethylhexanoic acid 149-57-5 0.7 0.7 10 —
sodium dodecyl sulfate 151-21-3 7 0.7 — Derived from US EPA oral RfD —
85
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
(74 Fed Reg 40503-40509) with a default
20% relative source contribution for
drinking water.
dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-) 156-59-2 0.07 0.007 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
dichloroethylene (trans-1,2) 156-60-5 0.1 0.01 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
NOT FOR
1,4-dioxaspiro(4,5)decane 177-10-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.0002 0.00002 — —
fluoranthene 206-44-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acenaphthylene 208-96-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
benzo(b)naphtha (2,1-
239-30-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
d)furan
5H-indeno(1,2-b)pyridine 244-99-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acridine 260-94-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
benzotropilidene, 3,4- 264-09-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2-benzisothiazole 272-16-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
triethylene diamine 280-57-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
cyclohexene oxide 286-20-4 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
trithiane 291-21-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
cycloheptane 291-64-5 0.2 0.02 — —
cyclododecane 294-62-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
1,6,11- 3 0.4 3 NSF action level. following chemicals:
295-63-6
trioxacyclopentadecane (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2002-10-04 CAS# 17043-02-6,
CAS# 56890-57-4, and
CAS# 64001-05-4.
86
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
cyclohexadecane 295-65-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
phorate 298-02-2 0.002 0.0002 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
benzene, 2-propenyl- 300-57-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
amphetamine 300-62-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecenamide 301-02-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Detections shall be
hydrazine 302-01-2 —
CAS# 10034-93-2.
DISTRIBUTION
chloral hydrate 302-17-0 0.7 0.07 — —
Detections shall be
0.0007 0.00007 Health Canada MAC. summed with the
OR SALE
aldrin 309-00-2 —
(total) (total) Issue date: 1994-10 following chemical:
CAS# 60-57-1.
tacrine 321-64-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
diuron 330-54-1 0.15 0.015 — —
Issue date: 1987-03
Detections shall be
0.2 0.02 0.9 summed with the
NSF action level.
potassium thiocyanate 333-20-0 (total as (total as (total as following chemicals:
SCN) SCN) SCN) CAS# 540-72-7 and
CAS# 1762-95-4.
Health Canada MAC.
diazinon 333-41-5 0.02 0.002 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
NSF action level.
n-decanoic acid 334-48-5 0.5 0.5 — —
0.00007 0.000007 US EPA Lifetime Drinking Water Health Detections shall be
perfluorooctanoic acid 335-67-1 —
(total) (total)10 Advisory. Issue date: 2016 summed with the
87
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
following chemical:
CAS# 1763-23-1.
benzene, 1-chloro-2-fluoro- 348-51-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-
tetradecafluoro-1- 355-63-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
heptene
acetic acid, 2-cyano- 372-09-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
silane, fluorotrimethyl- 420-56-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
piperidine, 2-propyl- 458-88-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyanoguanidine 461-58-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
—
DISTRIBUTION
hydantoin 461-72-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
WQA action level.
carbonyl sulfide 463-58-1 0.01 0.01 — —
hemanthamine 466-75-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
p-menthan-4-ol 470-65-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
pinanol 473-54-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
alpha-cadinol 481-34-5 0.01 0.01 — —
ethyl hydroxyphthalide 485-26-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
fluorenone 486-25-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
benzaldehyde, 2,4,6- 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level. summed with the
487-68-3
trimethyl- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2013-10-30 following chemical:
CAS# 5779-72-6.
phenol,
489-01-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,6-di-t-butyl-4-methoxy-
cyanostyrene, a 495-10-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diphenyl butanedione 495-71-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
indene, 2,3-dihydro- also
496-11-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(2,3-dihydro-1H-)
88
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dihydrobenzofuran, 2,3- 496-16-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4’-hydroxy-3’-
498-02-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methoxyacetophenone
L-cysteic acid 498-40-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-
499-75-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol
NOT FOR
dipicolinic acid 499-83-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol, 4-(2-propenyl)- 501-92-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
caprolactone 502-44-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexadecanoic acid,
—
DISTRIBUTION
2-hydroxy-1,3- 502-52-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
propanediyl ester
isocrotonic acid 503-64-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
UL action level.
phorone 504-20-1 0.01 0.01 — —
OR SALE
tetrahydropyridine, 2,3,4,5- 505-18-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,4-dithiane 505-29-3 0.07 0.007 — —
1-tetracosanol 506-51-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tert-butyl hypochlorite 507-40-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butene, 2,3-dichloro-2-
507-45-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-
borneol 507-70-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 0.1 0.01 — —
fenchyl alcohol, alpha- 512-13-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
89
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with the
tripropyl phosphate 513-08-6 following chemicals:
CAS# 78-40-0 and
CAS# 126-73-8.
ferruginol 514-62-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzoquinone, 2,6-
NOT FOR
517-61-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyl-1,4-
dehydroacetic acid 520-45-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dihydromethoxymethyl
524-40-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxopyridinecarbonitrile
DISTRIBUTION
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
OR SALE
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
tetramethylbenzene, 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. high flash
527-53-7
1,2,3,5- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
summed with
benzene, 1-methyl-2-(1- 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. chemicals under the
527-84-4
methylethyl)- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 high flash
aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
90
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
class-based
evaluation level.
benzenetricarboxylic acid,
528-44-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2,4-
NSF action level.
2-phenylhydracrylic acid 529-64-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
cyclohexanone, 2-hydroxy 533-60-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methylfuran 534-22-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenemethanol, 4-(1-
DISTRIBUTION
536-60-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylethyl)-
tricaprylin 538-23-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
OR SALE
chemicals under the
isobutylbenzene 538-93-2
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
benzyl ethyl ether 539-30-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
NSF action level.
sodium thiocyanate 540-72-7 (total as (total as (total as following chemicals:
CAS# 1762-95-4.
WQA action level.
isooctane 540-84-1 0.05 0.05 1 —
NSF action level.
t-butyl acetate 540-88-5 0.6 0.06 2 —
91
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dodecamethylcyclohexa-
540-97-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
siloxane
decamethylcyclopenta-
541-02-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
siloxane
WQA action level.
hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane 541-05-9 0.05 0.05 0.5 —
butanamide 541-35-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
See o-dichlorobenzene
dichlorobenzene, m- 541-73-1 0.6 0.06 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61
(CAS# 95-50-1).
2H-pyran-2-one,
542-28-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetrahydro-
DISTRIBUTION
bis(chloromethyl)ether 542-88-1 0.000002 0.0000002 — —
octodrine 543-82-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
tetradecanoic acid 544-63-8 0.5 0.5 — —
OR SALE
pinocampheol,
547-60-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(also pinocamphone)
CSA action level.
trimellictic anhydride 552-30-7 0.01 0.01 — —
tropic acid 552-63-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimesic acid 554-95-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclotetrasiloxane, WQA action level.
556-67-2 0.01 0.01 — —
octamethyl- JPRSC consensus date: 2018-08-08
cyclononasiloxane,
556-71-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecamethyl-
NSF action level.
3-methyl-2-buten-1-ol 556-82-1 0.5 0.05 2 —
nitroguanidine 556-88-7 0.7 0.07 — —
92
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
allyl ether 557-40-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
vinyl alcohol 557-75-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
chloromethyl propanol 558-42-9 0.2 0.02 0.3 —
1,1-dichloropropene 563-58-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isobutyramide 563-83-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
naphthalene, 1,8-dimethyl- 569-41-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
2,3-dichlorophenol 576-24-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
US EPA IRIS database with a default 20%
2,6-dimethylphenol 576-26-1 0.004 0.0004 — —
RSC for drinking water.
acetophenone, 2’-methyl- 577-16-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
aniline, 2-ethyl- 578-54-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
aniline, 2,6-diethyl- 579-66-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
2,7-naphthalenediol 582-17-2 0.01 0.01 — —
acetophenone,
582-24-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alpha-hydroxy-
pentanedione,
583-05-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-phenyl-1,4-
93
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2,5-dichlorophenol 583-78-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
CSA action level.
m-tert-butyl phenol 585-34-2 0.01 0.01 — —
acetophenone, 3’-methyl- 585-74-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
NSF action level.
lanthanum carbonate 587-26-8 4 0.4 — —
benzaldehyde azine 588-68-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
butyl propanoate 590-01-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bromophenol, 3- 591-20-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
cyclohexanol, 3-methyl- 591-23-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
hexanone, 2- 591-78-6 0.04 0.004 — —
hexane, 2,5-dimethyl- 592-13-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
isobutylurea 592-17-6
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
0.05 0.05 0.8 NSF action level. summed with other
urea, butyl- 592-31-4
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-17 chemicals under the
alkyl-substituted urea
94
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
class-based
evaluation level.
hexamethylene oxide 592-90-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecane, n- 593-45-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
heptacosane 593-49-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
chloroiodomethane 593-71-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
2,3-dibromo-2-
594-51-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylbutane
manool 596-85-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propanal,
597-31-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
2,2-dimethyl-3-hydroxy-
triethylsilanol 597-52-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea, methyl- 598-50-5
OR SALE
class-based
evaluation level.
acetamide, 2,2-dibromo- 598-70-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea, N,N-dimethyl- 598-94-7
class-based
evaluation level.
phenol, p-(alpha,
599-64-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alpha-dimethylbenzyl)-
sulfonylbis(4-methyl)-
599-66-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1,’
triphenyl stibine 603-36-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
95
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
2,6-dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 —
CAS# 121-14-2.
1-(phenylmethoxy)-
607-58-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
naphthalene
2,6-dichloro-1,4- NSF action level.
—
NOT FOR
609-20-1 0.02 0.002 0.02
n,n-dimethyl-o-toluidine 609-72-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
DISTRIBUTION
2-ethyltoluene 611-14-3
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
OR SALE
benzene, 1-ethenyl-2-
611-15-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-
9,10-dihydroanthracene 613-31-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
toluidine, N,N-diethyl-p- 613-48-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2-benzenediacetonitrile 613-73-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylbenzamide 613-93-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-isocyanto-2-
614-68-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylbenzene
benzothiazole,
615-22-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(methylmercapto)-
1,2,4-tribromobenzene 615-54-3 0.04 0.004 — —
96
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
615-66-7 0.3 0.03 0.5 —
Detections shall be
2,3-dichloro-1-propanol 616-23-9
CAS# 96-23-1.
phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1- IAPMO action level.
— —
NOT FOR
616-55-7 0.01 0.01
dimethylethyl)-6-methyl- JPRSC consensus date: 2019-03-06
cyanamide, diethyl- 617-83-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
formamide, N,N-diethyl- 617-84-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
2-phenyl-2-propanol 617-94-7 0.3 0.03 1 —
DISTRIBUTION
benzene, (1-chloroethenyl)- 618-34-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
furfural, 5-methyl 620-02-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
OR SALE
chemicals under the
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
3-ethylphenol 620-17-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
phenyl-(m-tolyl)-methane 620-47-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-methyl-4-(phenylmethyl)-
620-83-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene
4,4’-methylenediphenol 620-92-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isovanillin 621-59-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
97
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
N-nitroso-di-N-propylamine 621-64-7 0.00007 0.000007 — —
Detections shall be
summed with the
cinnamic acid 621-82-9 — CAS# 104-54-1,
CAS# 104-55-2,
NOT FOR
CAS# 140-10-3, and
CAS# 14371-10-9.
benzene, (2-chloroethenyl)- 622-25-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-morpholineethanol 622-40-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
phenol, 4-ethoxy- 622-62-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
OR SALE
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
benzene, 1-ethenyl-4-
622-97-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-
urea, N,N’,N’-trimethyl- 623-14-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
diethylurea, 1,3- 623-76-7
class-based
evaluation level.
fumaric acid, diethyl ester 623-91-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
98
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
octadien-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-
624-15-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,6-
disulfide, dimethyl 624-92-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butenoic acid, 3- 625-38-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
NOT FOR
ethylurea 625-52-5
class-based
evaluation level.
IAPMO action level.
furan, 2,5-dimethyl- 625-86-5 0.01 0.01 — —
DISTRIBUTION
methylpiperidine,1- 626-67-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
OR SALE
urea, propyl- 627-06-5
class-based
evaluation level.
adipic acid, monomethyl
627-91-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ester
dimethyl adipate 627-93-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diglycol chlorohydrin 628-89-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
hexanediol, 1,6- 629-11-8 2 0.2 10 —
ethane, 1,2-diethoxy 629-14-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexadecanamide 629-54-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexadecene-1 629-73-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
heptadecane 629-78-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nonadecane 629-92-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
99
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
heneicosane 629-94-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
docosane 629-97-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentacosane 629-99-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexacosane 630-01-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octacosane 630-02-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
—
NOT FOR
nonacosane 630-03-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 0.01 0.001 — —
Detections shall be
summed with the
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 79-08-3,
CAS# 76-03-9,
CAS# 79-11-8, and
0.060 0.0060 0.060 CAS# 79-43-6.
dibromoacetic acid 631-64-1 40 CFR § 141.64
OR SALE
(CAS# 79-43-6) must
also be evaluated
under its separate
pass/fail criteria
(TAC = 0.007 mg/L,
SPAC = 0.0007 mg/L).
dimethyl thioacetamide 631-67-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea, trimethyl- 632-14-4
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
tetramethyl urea 632-22-4 summed with other
chemicals under the
100
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
class-based
evaluation level.
beta-ergostenol 632-31-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trichloroaniline, 2,3,4- 634-67-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl butanedioic acid 635-51-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
trichloroaniline, 2,4,5- 636-30-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-propenyl- 637-50-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
ethyl t-butyl ether 637-92-3 20 2 20 —
DISTRIBUTION
2,6,10,14-
638-36-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetramethylhexadecane
tetradecanamide 638-58-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tricosane, also n-tricosane 638-67-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
— —
OR SALE
n-triacontane 638-68-6 0.7 0.07
benzenesulfonamide, n,4-
640-61-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyl-
3-methylbenzophenone 643-65-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1’-biphenyl, 3-methyl- 643-93-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acetophenone, p-isopropyl- 645-13-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenepropanenitrile 645-59-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
ethylhex-2-en-1-al, 2- 645-62-5 0.01 0.01 — —
lauric anhydride 645-66-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
decane, 1,10-diamino 646-25-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetracosane 646-31-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
imidazole, methylphenyl- 670-91-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
101
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzaldehyde, 2-hydroxy-
673-22-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-methoxy
piperidone, 2- 675-20-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dichloroacetamide 683-72-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
penten-2-one, 3,4-dimethyl-
684-94-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-
NOT FOR
2-propenoic acid,
IAPMO action level.
2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl 688-84-6 0.01 0.01 — —
ester
carbodiimide, di-t-butyl- 691-24-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
dodecanedioic acid 693-23-2 30 30 30 —
DISTRIBUTION
aminoundecanoic acid, 12- 693-57-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trans-13-octadecanoic acid 693-71-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-
694-87-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
triene
2-hydroxy-4-
698-27-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylbenzaldehyde
2H-pyran-2-one,
698-76-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetrahydro-6-propyl
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea, cyclohexyl- 698-90-8
class-based
evaluation level.
benzene, pentamethyl- 700-12-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzoquinone, 2,6-di-t-
719-22-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butyl-
2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-
728-40-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nitrophenol
102
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
formamide,
758-16-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N,N-dimethylthio-
dimethylpropanamide 758-96-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
formamide, N,N-di-n-butyl- 761-65-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methyl-1-pentene 763-29-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
NOT FOR
3-methyl-3-buten-1-ol 763-32-6
CAS# 115-18-4.
propanoic acid,
763-69-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-ethoxy-, ethyl ester
DISTRIBUTION
2,4-dimethyl-1,3-dioxane 766-20-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
maleic anhydride,
766-39-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3-dimethyl-
formamide, N-cyclohexyl- 766-93-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
indene, 1H-,
767-58-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3-dihydro-1-methyl-
3-oxo-3-phenylpropene 768-03-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-phenylisopropylamine 768-52-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
piperidene,
768-66-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-
4-tert-butylaniline 769-92-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propanol, 1-phenoxy 2- 770-35-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dioxane, 4-phenyl-1,3- 772-00-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dioxacyclododecane-7,12- WQA action level.
777-95-7 0.05 0.05 — —
dione, 1,6- JPRSC consensus date: 2016-08-17
toluenesulfonic acid, p-,
778-28-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butyl ester
alpha-(phenylimino)-ortho-
779-84-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cresol
103
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzenemethanamine,
780-25-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-(phenylmethylene)-
WQA action level.
triphenylphosphine oxide 791-28-6 0.001 0.0001 0.02 —
phenylene diamine,
n-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-n’- 793-24-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl-p-
NOT FOR
tributylphosphine oxide 814-29-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexanoic acid, 2-ethyl-,
816-19-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
hex-5-en-1-ol 821-41-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
dithiolane-2-thione, 1,3- 822-38-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
toluene, 2,6-diamino- 823-40-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
indene, 1H-,
824-22-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclopentylidenecyclo- NSF action level.
OR SALE
825-25-2 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
pentan-2-one JPRSC consensus date: 2019-09-18
Detections shall be
2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level. summed with the
826-36-8
piperidinone (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2011-05-10 following chemical:
CAS# 2403-88-5.
Detections shall be
summed with the
0.05 0.05 4 NSF action level.
cyclododecanone 830-13-7 following chemicals:
(total) (total) (total)) External peer review date: 2014-04-22
CAS# 1724-39-6 and
CAS# 58567-11-6.
NSF action level.
p-hydroxybenzhydrol 833-39-6 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
methacrylic acid, IAPMO action level.
868-77-9 0.01 0.01 — —
2-hydroxyethyl ester JPRSC consensus date: 2020-04-02
N-butyl formamide 871-71-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone 872-50-4 1 0.1 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1993-06-17 —
104
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzene, cyclopropyl- 873-49-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, trans-1-propenyl- 873-66-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
indene, 1H-,
874-35-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
NOT FOR
chemicals under the
1,3-dimethyl-4- 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. high flash
874-41-9
ethylbenzene (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
DISTRIBUTION
evaluation level.
xylenol, 4-tert-butyl-2,6- 879-97-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alpha-benzene-succinic
884-33-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid
Detections shall be
OR SALE
summed with the
0.00008 0.000008 WQA action level. following chemicals:
lanthanum acetate 917-70-4 —
(total as La) (total as La) External peer review date: 2017-10-17 CAS# 10099-58-8,
CAS# 10099-59-9, and
CAS# 10099-60-2.
1,1,1-trichloro-2-propanone 918-00-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
silane, gamma-aminopropyl
919-30-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
triethoxy-
Action levels
expressed as TAA
(CAS# 75-85-4).
Detections of TAEE
butane, 2-ethoxy-2-methyl- 919-94-8 (CAS# 919-94-8)
and TAME
(CAS# 994-05-8) are to
be multiplied by
molecular weight
105
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
0.76 and 0.86,
summation.
Detections shall be
summed with the
NOT FOR
CAS# 994-05-8 and
CAS# 75-85-4.
hydroxypropyl NSF action level.
923-26-2 0.01 0.01 — —
methacrylate, 2- JPRSC consensus date: 2018-12-11
— —
DISTRIBUTION
N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine 924-16-3 0.0003 0.00003
hex-2-en-1-ol, cis- 928-94-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hex-2-en-1-ol, trans- 928-95-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
US EPA 10 /10-6 cancer risk levels.
-5
N-nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 0.00002 0.000002 — —
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
933-98-2
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
benzothiazolinone, 2- 934-34-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
1,3-dimethyl-5- 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. chemicals under the
934-74-7
ethylbenzene (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 high flash
aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
106
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
934-80-5
NOT FOR
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
benzene, (1-methoxy-1-
935-67-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylethyl)-
DISTRIBUTION
2-phenyl-2-imidazoline 936-49-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl-1-buten-4-ol, 4- 936-58-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-(4-ethylphenyl)-ethanone 937-30-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
naphthalene, 2-ethyl- 939-27-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
4,6,8-trimethylazulene 941-81-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-hexanone, 1-phenyl 942-92-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
laurolactam 947-04-6 0.4 0.04 2 —
Action levels
expressed as TAA
(CAS# 75-85-4).
Detections of TAEE
(CAS# 919-94-8)
butane, 0.3 0.03 0.4 NSF action level. and TAME
994-05-8
2-methoxy-2-methyl- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2019-10-22 (CAS# 994-05-8) are to
be multiplied by
molecular weight
0.76 and 0.86,
107
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
summation.
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 919-94-8 and
CAS# 75-85-4.
butanone, 1-phenyl-2- 1007-32-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Detections shall be
summed with other
1-methyl-3-phenylurea 1007-36-9
class-based
DISTRIBUTION
evaluation level.
1,1’-(1,4-phenylene)bis- NSF action level.
1009-61-6 0.01 0.01 — —
ethanone JPRSC consensus date: 2020-05-06
1,3-bis(1,1-
1014-60-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylethyl)benzene
OR SALE
heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 0.0002 0.00002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
NSF action level.
triallyl isocyanurate 1025-15-6 0.04 0.04 0.04 —
WQA action level.
trimethyl silanol 1066-40-6 0.05 0.05 0.4 —
butanoic acid, 3,3-dimethyl- 1070-83-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methane, di-t-butyl- 1070-87-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
glyphosate 1071-83-6 0.7 0.07 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
Detections shall be
summed with
0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level. chemicals under the
1-methyl-2-propylbenzene 1074-17-5
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27 high flash
aromatic naphtha
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
108
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
NOT FOR
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
Detections shall be
summed with
DISTRIBUTION
chemicals under the
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
OR SALE
evaluation level.
NSF action level.
ammonium carbamate 1111-78-0 20 5 20 —
diethylmethyl borane 1115-07-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butenal, methyl- 1115-11-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-nitrosodiethanolamine 1116-54-7 0.0001 0.00001 — —
NSF action level.
dimethyl glutarate 1119-40-0 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
1,2-decanediol 1119-86-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dodecanamide 1120-16-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetradecane 1120-36-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3-dimethyl-2-
1121-05-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclopentene-1-one
dimethylaminopyridine 1122-58-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
109
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzaldehyde,
1123-56-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,6-dimethyl-
tetramethylpyrazine,
1124-11-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3,5,6-
acetamide, n-cyclohexyl- 1124-53-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyridine,
1,2,3,6-tetrahydro- 1124-69-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
propanamide, n-cyclohexyl 1126-56-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
naphthalene, 1-ethyl- 1127-76-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
4-hydroxybenzophenone 1137-42-4 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
DISTRIBUTION
naphthalene-d8 1146-65-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,
1-methyl-1,3-propanediyl 1189-08-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ester, 2-
OR SALE
pentaethylene glycol
1191-87-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyl ether
cyclohexen-1-one,
1193-18-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-methyl-2-
furylmethylketone,
1193-79-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5-methyl-2-
benzyl alcohol, α,α,4-
1197-01-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimethyl-
glycine, n-benzoyl-,
1205-08-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
4-chlorodiphenylamine 1205-71-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tricyclopentabenzene 1206-79-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sodium p-sulfophenyl
1208-67-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methallyl ether
phosphate, NSF action level.
1241-94-7 0.01 0.01 — —
diphenyl-2-ethylhexyl- JPRSC consensus date: 2019-04-10
110
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
sodium xylenesulfonate 1300-72-7 0.05 0.05 — —
Issue date: 1996-04
NSF action level.
cerium oxide 1306-38-3 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
lanthanum oxide 1312-81-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexanol, trimethyl- 1321-60-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
benzene, divinyl- 1321-74-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
MFL = million fibers per
asbestos 1332-21-4 7 MFL 0.7 MFL — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 liter, with fiber length
> 10 microns.
tetramethyldecynediol 1333-17-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
benzaldehyde, 2-, 3-, 4-
1334-78-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl- mixed isomers
propanol, phenyl-1- 1335-12-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
CAS# 1336-36-3
OR SALE
is representative of
polychlorinated biphenyls 1336-36-3 0.0005 0.00005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 polychlorinated
biphenyls as a
chemical class.
Detections shall be
0.05 NSF action level. summed with the
sorbitan monopalmitate 1338-40-5 — —
(total) Issue date: 1996-12 following chemical:
CAS# 1338-41-6.
Detections shall be
0.05 NSF action level. summed with the
sorbitan monostearate 1338-41-6 — —
(total) Issue date: 1996-12 following chemical:
CAS# 1338-40-5.
NSF action level.
sorbitan monoleate 1338-43-8 4 0.4 20 —
benzenemethanol,
1445-91-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
α-methyl-, -(S)-
111
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzenebutanoic acid,
1453-06-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,5-dimethyl-
1-heptadecanol 1454-85-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
2-pentene, 4-chloro 1458-99-7 0.002 0.0002 — —
NOT FOR
dimethylcyanamide 1467-79-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oct-2-enoic acid 1470-50-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenemethanamine, 1,3- 1477-55-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenemethanol,
1517-69-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
α-methyl-, -I-
DISTRIBUTION
piperidinocarbonitrile 1530-87-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
morpholine, 4-dodecyl- 1541-81-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-[2-(ethylhexyl)oxy]-
1559-35-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethanol
OR SALE
1-cyclopentene-1-
1560-11-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
carboxylic acid
2-chlorocyclohexanol 1561-86-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
carbofuran 1563-66-2 0.04 0.004 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
4[((4-
dimethylamino)phenyl)m
1564-29-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethylene]-2-phenyl-5(4H)-
oxazolone
3-phenyl-3-pentanol 1565-71-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
α-ethyl-α-methylbenzyl
1565-75-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alcohol
propanol, 1-propoxy-2- 1569-01-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
penten-2-ol, 3- 1569-50-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentenal, trans-2- 1576-87-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
112
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Health Canada MAC.
trifluralin 1582-09-8 0.045 0.0045 — —
Issue date: 1989-02
ethyl benzoylformate 1603-79-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzaldehyde,
3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- 1620-98-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hydroxy-
hex-1-ene, 2-ethyl- 1632-16-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
fenchyl alcohol 1632-73-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
methyl t-butyl ether 1634-04-4 80 8 80 —
Total combined
DISTRIBUTION
detection of
CAS# 116-06-3,
CAS# 1646-87-3, and
aldicarb sulphoxide 1646-87-3 0.004 0.0004 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61
CAS# 1646-88-4
shall not exceed
OR SALE
0.007 mg/L (TAC) or
0.0007 (SPAC).
Total combined
detection of
CAS# 116-06-3,
CAS# 1646-87-3, and
aldicarb sulphone 1646-88-4 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61
CAS# 1646-88-4
shall not exceed
0.007 mg/L (TAC) or
0.0007 (SPAC).
propanenitrile, 3,3’-oxybis- 1656-48-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
1 0.1 5 NSF action level. summed with the
bisphenol A diglycidyl ether 1675-54-3
CAS# 5581-32-8.
3H-1,2 benzodithiol-3-one 1677-27-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
113
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzenesulfonamide,
1678-25-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-phenyl
methyl-4-isopropyl
1678-82-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexane, trans-1-
terephthalic acid,
1679-64-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
monomethyl ester
1H-indene, 2,3-dihydro,
—
NOT FOR
1685-82-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
4,6-dimethyl-
Health Canada MAC.
bromoxynil 1689-84-5 0.005 0.0005 — —
Issue date: 1987-03
1,3-dimethyl piperidinone 1690-76-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
—
DISTRIBUTION
2,5-dimethylanilsole 1706-11-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
Detections shall be
summed with the
cyclododecanol 1724-39-6 following chemicals:
(total) (total) (total)) External peer review date: 2014-04-22
CAS# 830-13-7 and
OR SALE
CAS# 58567-11-6.
o-cresolsulfonephthalein 1733-12-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diphenyl(ethyl)phosphine
1733-57-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxide
dimethylaminopropane-
1738-25-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nitrile
dehydroabietic acid 1740-19-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol, 2-allyl- 1745-81-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 1746-01-6 0.00000003 0.000000003 — —
US EPA Toxic Equivalency Factor: 1
allyl phenol ether 1746-13-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with
1,4-dimethyl-2- 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level.
1758-88-9 chemicals under the
ethylbenzene (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27
high flash
aromatic naphtha
114
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
evaluation level.
n-cyclohexylbenzamide 1759-68-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexanamine,
1761-71-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4,4’-methylene-bis-
Detections shall be
NOT FOR
NSF action level.
ammonium thiocyanate 1762-95-4 (total as (total as (total as following chemicals:
CAS# 540-72-7.
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
perfluorooctanesulfonic 0.00007 0.000007 US EPA Lifetime Drinking Water summed with the
1763-23-1 —
acid (total) (total)10 Health Advisory. Issue date: 2016 following chemical:
CAS# 335-67-1.
Detections shall be
summed with other
OR SALE
urea, N,N'-dibutyl- 1792-17-2
class-based
evaluation level.
aniline, 2-propyl- 1821-39-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methoxytrimethylsilane 1825-61-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
anilinobenzothiazole 1843-21-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzimidazolone,
1849-01-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-methyl-2-
1,2,3-trichloro-2-
1871-58-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylpropane
2-octenoic acid, (2E)- 1871-67-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hydroxymethylcyclo-
1892-12-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dodecane
115
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
cembrene 1898-13-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzopyrimidine,
1904-64-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,4-dihydro-
Health Canada MAC.
paraquat (as dichloride) 1910-42-5 0.01 0.001 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
atrazine 1912-24-9 0.003 0.0003 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
NOT FOR
Atrazine
(CAS# 1912-24-9)
may not exceed its
individual criteria of
0.003 mg/L (TAC) or
DISTRIBUTION
0.005 0.0005 Health Canada MAC. 0.0003 mg/L (SPAC).
atrazine and metabolites 1912-24-9 —
(total) (total) Issue date: 1993-04 Atrazine metabolites
may include the
following:
CAS# 1007-28-9,
OR SALE
CAS# 3397-62-4, and
CAS# 6190-65-4.
Health Canada MAC.
dicamba 1918-00-9 0.12 0.012 — —
Issue date: 1987-03
Health Canada MAC.
picloram 1918-02-1 0.19 0.019 — —
Issue date: 1988-06
octadecenoic acid, 9(E)-,
1937-62-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
methyl (Z)-octadec-11-
1937-63-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
enoate
NSF action level.
t-butyl hydroquinone 1948-33-0 5 0.5 7 —
Detections shall be
1-(2-methylcyclohexyl)-3- 0.05 0.05 0.8 NSF action level. summed with other
1982-49-6
phenylurea (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-17 chemicals under the
116
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
class-based
evaluation level.
1,1’-dimethyl-3-
1985-88-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
chloropropanol
phenol, 4-(1-phenylethyl)- 1988-89-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenedimethanol,
1999-85-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
a,a,a’,a’-tetramethyl-1,3-
NOT FOR
2,6-dichlorobenzamide 2008-58-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetradecanamine, 1- 2016-42-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
decylamine, n- 2016-57-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
morpholine,
DISTRIBUTION
2038-03-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-(2-aminoethyl)-
benzenepropanamine 2038-57-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenebutanenitrile 2046-18-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dibutyl cyanamide, N,N- 2050-54-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
butanediol dimethacrylate,
2082-81-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,4-
berberine 2086-83-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dioxathiocane, 1,3,6- 2094-92-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bisphenol F diglycidyl ether 2095-03-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,10-dichlorodecane 2162-98-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea,
N'-cyclopentyl-N,N- 2163-69-1
dimethyl-
class-based
evaluation level.
glycidyl ether,
2210-79-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methylphenyl-
117
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
cyclohexanamine,
2211-66-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-(phenylmethylene)-
n,n-diethyl-p-nitroaniline 2216-15-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n,n-diethyl-3-nitroaniline 2216-16-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-
2219-82-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl phenol
NOT FOR
Detections shall be
summed with the
phosphonic acid, CAS# 6419-19-8,
0.01 0.01 NSF action level.
(nitrilotris(methylene))tri-, 2235-43-0 — CAS# 20592-85-2,
DISTRIBUTION
pentasodium CAS# 4105-01-5,
CAS# 7611-50-9,
CAS# 94021-23-5, and
CAS# 15505-05-2.
benzothiazole-2-thione,
2254-94-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
n-methyl-
propargite 2312-35-8 0.1 0.01 — —
ethanol,
2-[2-[4-(1,1,3,3-
2315-61-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetramethyl-
butyl)phenoxy]ethoxy]-
Detections shall be
summed with the
octoxynol-3 2315-62-0 CAS# 58705-51-4,
CAS# 49796-75-0,
CAS# 38621-31-7,
CAS# 37809-81-7,
118
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 2315-63-1, and
CAS# 2315-64-2.
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 58705-51-4,
octoxynol-4 2315-63-1 CAS# 49796-75-0,
NOT FOR
CAS# 38621-31-7,
CAS# 37809-81-7,
CAS# 2315-62-0, and
CAS# 2315-64-2.
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
summed with the
CAS# 58705-51-4,
octoxynol-5 2315-64-2 CAS# 49796-75-0,
CAS# 38621-31-7,
OR SALE
CAS# 37809-81-7,
CAS# 2315-62-0, and
CAS# 2315-63-1.
fluorescein 2321-07-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecenoic acid, 8-,
2345-29-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
Detections shall be
summed with the
diethylene glycol 0.05 0.05 2 WQA action level. following chemicals:
2358-84-1
dimethacrylate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-10-20 CAS# 97-90-5,
CAS# 109-16-0, and
CAS# 109-17-1.
nonanal, 2-oxo- 2363-87-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
decadienal, 2,4- 2363-88-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-octenal 2363-89-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
119
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2,2-dimethyl-1-hexanol 2370-13-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxabicyclo (4.1.0) heptane-
2386-87-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-carboxylic acid, 7-
Detections shall be
summed with other
1,3-dicyclohexylurea 2387-23-7
NOT FOR
class-based
evaluation level.
benzene, 1-ethyldecyl- 2400-00-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-hexylheptyl- 2400-01-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
Detections shall be
2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level. summed with the
2403-88-5
piperidinol (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2011-05-10 following chemical:
CAS# 826-36-8.
piperidinol,
2403-89-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-
(phenylimino)
2406-04-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexadiene
propanol,
1-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) 2416-30-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenoxy]-2-
1-chlorotetradecane 2425-54-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
formamide,
2425-74-3 0.003 0.0003 — TOE —
N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-
butanediol diglycidyl ether,
2425-79-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,4-
n-butyl glycidyl ether 2426-08-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
11-aminoundecanoic acid 2432-99-7 0.05 0.05 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1999-04-15 —
2,3,4-trimethylquinoline 2437-72-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
120
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzotriazole, 2-(2-
NSF action level.
hydroxy-5-methyl- 2440-22-4 4 0.4 6 —
phenyl)-
trimethyl trimellitate 2459-10-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
di(t-butyl) benzoquinone 2460-77-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether 2461-15-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
dodecyl glycidyl ether 2461-18-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2462-84-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
2,2’-bisphenol F 2467-02-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,4’-bisphenol F —
DISTRIBUTION
2467-03-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
trimethylthiourea 2489-77-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-methoxybutanol 2517-43-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methacrylic acid, 3-
2530-85-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(trimethylsilyl)propyl ester
OR SALE
nonanoic acid, 9-oxo- 2553-17-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
9,12-octadecanoic acid,
2566-97-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
methane, di-t-butoxy 2568-93-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexanedimethan-
2579-20-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
amine, 1,3-
piperidine, 1-formyl 2591-86-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexadiene-1-one,
2,6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4- 2607-52-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylene-2,5-
2, 4-dichlorophenyl
2612-57-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isocyanate
NSF action level.
benzisothiazolin-3-one 2634-33-5 0.01 0.01 — —
121
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
octadecadienoic acid,
2634-45-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(Z,Z)-9,12- , butyl ester
C.I. Acid Blue 9 2650-18-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1-cycloheanedimethanol 2658-60-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,4-
2670-38-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dichlorobenzenediamine
NOT FOR
methyl isothiazolone 2682-20-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyrrolidinone, 1-dodecyl-2- 2687-96-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sodium 4-styrenesulfonate 2695-37-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
aniline, 4-n-propyl- 2696-84-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
benzene, 1-methylundecyl- 2719-61-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-pentylheptyl- 2719-62-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-butyloctyl- 2719-63-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-propylnonyl- 2719-64-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
dilauryl disulfide 2757-37-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-hydroxypropyl
2761-09-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methacrylate
diquat 2764-72-9 0.02 0.002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
octadecenoic acid, 6(Z),
2777-58-4 0.003 0.0003 — TOE —
methyl ester
octadecanoic acid,
2778-96-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecyl ester
NSF action level.
tetramethylthiourea 2782-91-4 0.01 0.001 0.2 —
1-hydroxyethylidene-1,
1-diphosphonic acid 2809-21-4 — 0.02 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1999-07-08 —
(HEDP)
NSF action level.
isophorone diamine 2855-13-2 0.1 0.01 0.6 —
122
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with
chemicals under the
2870-04-4
(CAS# 64742-95-6)
class-based
NOT FOR
evaluation level.
2-nonen-4-one, 2-methyl- 2903-23-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-dioxolane,
2916-31-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,2-dimethyl-
Health Canada MAC.
DISTRIBUTION
chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 0.09 0.009 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
benzenedimethanol,
2948-46-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
a,a,a’,a’-tetramethyl-1,4-
benzyldiphenylphosphine
2959-74-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxide
OR SALE
dimethyldodecanamide,
3007-53-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N,N-
3-methyl-cinnamic acid 3029-79-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methyl-4-phenyl
3077-16-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
morpholine
cyclohexyl isocyanate 3173-53-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexen-2-one, 5-methyl-5- 3240-09-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octa-
3268-87-9 0.0003 0.00003 — US EPA toxic equivalency factor: 0.0001 —
chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
trimethylolpropane
3290-92-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimethacrylate
1,2,3,4-tetrahydroacridine 3295-64-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dicyclohexyloxamide 3299-64-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,5,5-trimethylhexanoic
3302-10-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid
123
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
tetramethyl-succinonitrile 3333-52-6 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-
3347-62-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyrazole
NSF action level.
triclosan 3380-34-5 0.3 0.03 0.7 —
octen-3-ol, 1- 3391-86-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
1-pentene, 3,3-dimethyl 3404-73-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
morpholinecarboxamide,
3417-54-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-cyclohexyl-4-
benzyl alcohol,
3445-42-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
a,a-dimethyl-p-isopropyl-
formamidine, N,N-dimethyl-
3459-75-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N’-cyclohexyl-
9H-pyrido(3,3-b)indole-1-
carboxylic acid, 3464-66-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
methyl ester
hexane, 2,2,5-trimethyl 3522-94-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylol glycol 3586-55-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-butylbenzene- NSF action level.
3622-84-2 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
sulfonamide External peer review date: 2011-09-20
ethanone,
3637-01-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-(3,4-dimethylphenyl-
dioctyltin dilaurate 3648-18-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3648-20-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid, diundecyl ester
dimethyl trisulfide 3658-80-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butenoic acid, 2- 3724-65-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-ethyl-2-methyl-
3728-54-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexane
C.I. Acid Red 1 3734-67-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
124
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dimethyldithiocarbamate,
3735-92-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl
2-butanol,
3760-96-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-(dimethylamino-)
furan, 2-pentyl- 3777-69-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzoic acid, 2-cyano- 3839-22-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
triphenylphosphine sulfide 3878-45-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
monomethyl succinate
(monomethyl ester 3878-55-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butanedioc acid)
octadecanamide,
3886-90-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
N,N-dimethyl-
hexadecanamide,
3886-91-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N,N-dimethyl-
2,6,10-trimethyl-dodecane 3891-98-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenylindan,
OR SALE
3910-35-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1,3-trimethyl-3-
1,2-cycloheanedimethanol 3971-29-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene,
WQA action level.
(1,2-dimethoxyethyl)- 4013-37-0 0.05 0.005 — —
isomers
benzenesulfonyl
4083-64-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isocyanate, 4-methyl
Detections shall be
summed with the
amino tris CAS# 6419-19-8,
(methylenephosphonic 4105-01-5 — CAS# 20592-85-2,
acid), 2Na salt CAS# 7611-50-9,
CAS# 94021-23-5,
CAS# 2235-43-0, and
CAS# 15505-05-2.
125
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dimethyl-3,3’-
4131-74-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
thiobispropionate
1,4-dibutoxybutane 4161-40-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1H-indene, 2,3-dihydro,
4175-53-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-dimethyl-
benzene,
4218-48-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-ethyl-4-(1-methylethyl)
NOT FOR
phenol, o-(1-phenylethyl)- 4237-44-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isobutyl 4-hydroxybenzoate 4247-02-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1,2-trimethylcyclopentane 4259-00-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phosphinic acid, p-phenyl-,
DISTRIBUTION
4297-95-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Na salt
adipic acid,
4337-65-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
mono(2-ethylhexyl) ester
1-benzothiepin,
4370-78-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-
OR SALE
methyl hydrogen phthalate 4376-18-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n,n-dimethylhexylamine 4385-04-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nonane, 2,2,4,4,6,8,8-
4390-04-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
heptamethyl
morpholinecarbaldehyde,
4394-85-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-
2,2’-azobis(2,4-
4419-11-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylvaleronitrile)
2-(n-morpholinylmethyl)
4438-01-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol
2,5-tetrahydrodipropylfuran 4457-62-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tridecane, 6-phenyl- 4534-49-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-butylnonyl- 4534-50-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-propyldecyl- 4534-51-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
126
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzene, 1-ethylundecyl- 4534-52-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-methyldodecyl- 4534-53-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-propyloctyl- 4536-86-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-ethylnonyl- 4536-87-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 1-methyldecyl- 4536-88-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
—
NOT FOR
benzene, 1-butylheptyl- 4537-15-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
morpholinepropanenitrile,
4542-47-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-
methyl pentanedinitrile 4553-62-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
summed with other
urea, 1,1,3,3-tetrabutyl- 4559-86-8
class-based
evaluation level.
OR SALE
benzoquinone,
4584-63-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,5-di-tert-pentyl-p-
podocarpa-8,11,13-trien-
4586-72-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
16-oic acid
methyldiethyl carbamate 4652-44-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
buten-1-ol, 2-methyl-2- 4675-87-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene, 2,4-dimethyl-1-
4706-89-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(methylethyl)-
benzene, 1,3-dimethyl-5-
4706-90-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isopropyl-
benzaldehyde, 4-ethyl 4748-78-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
15-octadeconoic acid,
4764-72-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
1-chloro-3-phenoxy-2-
4769-73-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propanol
127
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
3-cyclohexene-1-carboxylic
4771-80-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid
alpha-chloro-benzeneacetic
4773-33-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid-, ethyl ester
cyclobutane, ethyl- 4806-61-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,4-diphenylfuran-2,5-dione 4808-48-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
2,5-dimethyl-3-hydroxy-4-
4811-03-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyridinemethanol
butylamine, N-butylidene 4853-56-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclopentylcyclopentanone,
4884-24-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-
DISTRIBUTION
9-(ethoxycarbonyl)
4895-92-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenanthrene
pinanol (or cis-2-pinanol) 4948-28-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pinanol, trans-2- 4948-29-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
3-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-
WQA action level.
cyclohexen-1-yl) 4951-40-0 0.3 0.03 — —
acrylaldehyde
benzene, 1,1’-
4957-14-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylenebis(4-methyl)-
ethylcyclopentanone 4971-18-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-phenylcyclohexene 4994-16-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyldiphenyl sulphone 5097-12-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexanemethanol,
trans-alpha,alpha,4- 5114-00-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimethyl-
methyl-14-
5129-60-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylpentadecanoate
heptadecanoic acid,
5129-61-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
16-methyl-, methyl ester
128
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
5131-60-2 0.3 0.03 0.3 —
propylene glycol n-butyl NSF action level.
5131-66-8 2 0.2 30 —
ether External peer review date: 2002-10-03
13-isoproylpodocarpa-
5155-70-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
8,11,13-trien-16-oic acid
NOT FOR
benzene, 4,6-diisopropyl-
5186-68-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-dimethyl-
3,4,5,6-tetrahydro-1,3-
5259-97-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxazin-2-one
—
DISTRIBUTION
dodecyl tetraglycol 5274-68-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
n-nonanoyl morpholine 5299-64-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acetaldehyde,
5314-41-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
di-sec-butyl acetal
hexamethylene
—
OR SALE
5326-21-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
dibenzamide
hexanamine, 2- 5329-79-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea,
N,N-bis-(1,1- 5336-24-3
dimethylethyl)-
class-based
evaluation level.
propanenitrile,
5351-04-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-(diethylamino)-
ethanone, 1-(4-(1- CSA action level.
5359-04-6 0.01 0.01 — —
methylethenyl)phenyl)- JPRSC consensus date: 2014-08-13
2,5-dichlorophenyl
5392-82-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isocyanate
ethanol,
5394-57-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(4-methoxyphenoxy)-
129
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dihydromethyl
5400-75-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzimidazolone
3,4-dihydro-3,3,6,8-
tetramethylnaphthalen- 5409-55-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1(2H)-one
triisopropyl borate 5419-55-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-isopropyl
NOT FOR
5427-03-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenol
benzoic acid, WQA action level.
5444-75-7 0.01 0.01 — —
2-ethylhexyl ester- JPRSC consensus date: 2018-08-08
cinnamate,
5466-77-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxy-
DISTRIBUTION
butanone,
5471-51-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-
Detections shall be
bisphenol A diglycideryl 1 0.1 5 NSF action level. summed with the
5581-32-8
ether (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2002-10-03 following chemical:
OR SALE
CAS# 1675-54-3.
2,2-bis(3,5-dimethyl-4-
5613-46-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hydroxyphenyl)propane
benzeneamine,
4-(1-methylethyl)-N- 5650-10-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl-
1-propanone,
5650-41-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-hydroxy-1-phenyl-
pyrrolo(1,2-a)pyrazine-1,4-
dione, hexahydro-3-(2- 5654-86-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylpropyl)-
WQA action level.
decyltetraglycol isomer 5703-94-6 0.01 0.01 — —
phenanthro[3,4-c]furan-1,3-
5723-54-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dione
sitosterol 5779-62-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
130
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
benzaldehyde, 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level. summed with the
5779-72-6
2,4,5-trimethyl- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2013-10-30 following chemical:
CAS# 487-68-3.
dimethylbenzaldehyde, 2,5 5779-94-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzaldehyde,
5799-95-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,5-dimethyl-
NOT FOR
acetylhexamethyleneimine 5809-41-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
tau-cadinol 5937-11-1 0.01 0.01 — —
dimethylbenzaldehyde, 3,4- 5973-71-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
dioxadithionane, 1,3,6,7- 5980-67-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trioxepane, 1,3,5- 5981-06-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadien-2-ol,
5986-38-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,6-dimethyl-5,7-
OR SALE
Methylenephenethyl
6006-81-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alcohol, beta-
sodium formaldehyde
6035-47-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulfoxylate
cyclohexane,
6069-98-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cis-1-methyl-4-isopropyl-
Detections shall be
summed with other
N,N''-(Isobutylidene)diurea 6104-30-9
class-based
evaluation level.
formylcyclopentene, 1- 6140-65-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
tris(2-chloropropyl) 0.4 0.04 2 NSF action level. summed with the
6145-73-9
phosphate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-04-19 following chemicals:
CAS# 13674-84-5,
131
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 76649-15-5,
CAS# 76649-15-5,
CAS# 137888-35-8,
and
CAS# 137909-40-1.
benzyl alcohol, 4-ethoxy 6214-44-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acridine,
NOT FOR
IAPMO action level.
9,10-dihydro-9,9- 6267-02-3 0.01 0.01 — —
dimethyl-
phenol, p-phenylethyl- 6335-83-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
indan-1-ol 6351-10-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
4-chloro-2,5-
6358-64-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyoxybenzamine
Detections shall be
summed with the
methyl 3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-
0.06 0.006 0.8 NSF action level. following chemicals:
4-hydroxyphenyl) 6386-38-5
OR SALE
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-18 CAS# 20170-32-5,
propionate
CAS# 82340-66-3, and
CAS# 138345-00-3.
fluorescein,
6417-85-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dipotassium salt
Detections shall be
summed with the
acid) CAS# 7611-50-9,
CAS# 94021-23-5,
CAS# 2235-43-0, and
CAS# 15505-05-2.
di(2-ethylhexyl) NSF action level.
6422-86-2 1 0.1 9 —
terephthalate External peer review date: 2008-04-17
132
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
carbonic acid,
6482-34-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diisopropyl ester
benzene,
1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3- 6630-01-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethyl-5-methyl-
6-amino-1,3-dimethyluracil 6642-31-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene,
NOT FOR
6669-13-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(1,1-dimethylethoxy)-
2,3-dihydro-4,5,7-trimethyl-
6682-06-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1H-indene
hexamethyleneimine,
6763-91-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-ethyl-
DISTRIBUTION
phenylene) bis-ethanone, NSF action level.
6781-42-6 0.01 0.01 — —
1,1’-(1,3- JPRSC consensus date: 2019-02-20
2-chloro-1,3-
6781-98-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylbenzene
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 77-68-9,
2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3- 0.2 0.2 2 WQA action level.
6846-50-0 CAS# 144-19-4,
pentanediol diisobutyrate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-26
CAS# 25265-77-4,
CAS# 74367-33-2,
CAS# 74367-34-3, and
CAS# 74381-40-1.
2,2’-dimethyl-4,4’-
methylene 6864-37-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bis(cyclohexylamine)
2-methylindoline 6872-06-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cis-hexahydrophthalide 6939-71-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-chlorophenyl phenyl
7005-72-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ether
133
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Expressed as
anhydrous Chloramine
chloramine-T trihydrate 7080-50-4 summed with the
CAS# 70-55-3 and
CAS# 127-65-1.
NOT FOR
acrylic acid, 2-cyano-,
7085-85-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethyl ester
octanamide, UL action level.
7112-02-9 0.01 0.01 — —
N-(2-hydroxyethyl)- JPRSC consensus date: 2016-10-06
ethanol, 2-[2-(2-
—
DISTRIBUTION
7204-16-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
phenoxyethoxy)ethoxy]-
WQA action level.
5-octadecene (E) 7206-21-5 0.01 0.01 — —
2-thiazolecarboxylic acid,
7210-73-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-methyl-, ethyl ester
OR SALE
butyl glycolate 7397-62-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-nitro-1-phenyl-1-
7404-78-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butanone
NSF action level.
aluminum 7429-90-5 9 2 9 —
TT
TT = treatment
lead 7439-92-1 (action level 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.80; 65 FR 1950
technique8,9
0.005 mg/L)
lithium 7439-93-2 1 0.3 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1999-09-27 —
Health Canada MAC.
manganese 7439-96-5 0.12 0.012 — —
Issue date: 2019-05
mercury (inorganic) 7439-97-6 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
US EPA Draft Health Advisory.
molybdenum 7439-98-7 0.04 0.004 — —
Issue date: 1993
neodymium 7440-00-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
134
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
WQA action level.
nickel 7440-02-0 0.1 0.02 — —
niobium 7440-03-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
platinum 7440-06-4 0.01 0.001 — —
WQA action level.
potassium-39 7440-09-7 500 50 — —
NOT FOR
praseodymium 7440-10-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
rhenium 7440-15-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NSF action level.
rubidium 7440-17-7 0.5 0.2 0.5 —
DISTRIBUTION
ruthenium 7440-18-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
samarium 7440-19-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
silicon 7440-21-3 1 0.1 — NSF action level. Issue date: —
US EPA Lifetime Drinking Water
OR SALE
silver 7440-22-4 0.1 0.01 — Health Advisory. —
Issue date: 1992
strontium 7440-24-6 4 0.4 — —
tantalum 7440-25-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
thallium 7440-28-0 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
NSF action level.
tin, inorganic 7440-31-5 4 0.4 — —
Detections shall be
90
90 9 NSF action level. summed with the
titanium 7440-32-6 (total as
(total as Ti) (total as Ti) External peer review date: 2003-09-04 following chemical:
Ti)
CAS# 13463-67-7.
NSF action level.
tungsten 7440-33-7 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
135
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
antimony 7440-36-0 0.006 0.0006 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
arsenic 7440-38-2 0.01 0.001 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
barium 7440-39-3 2 0.2 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
beryllium 7440-41-7 0.004 0.0004 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
Health Canada
boron 7440-42-8 5 0.5 — —
Issue date: 1990-09
NOT FOR
cadmium 7440-43-9 0.005 0.0005 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
cerium 7440-45-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
chromium (total) 7440-47-3 0.1 0.01 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
WQA action level.
—
DISTRIBUTION
cobalt 7440-48-4 0.007 0.0007 0.2
TT
TT = treatment
copper 7440-50-8 (action level 0.13 — 40 CFR § 141.80, 65 FR 1950
technique8
1.3 mg/L)
NSF action level.
— —
OR SALE
gallium 7440-55-3 0.01 0.01
hafnium 7440-58-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
uranium 7440-61-1 — —
(20 pCi/L) (2 pCi/L) Issue date: 2019-05
vanadium 7440-62-2 0.03 0.003 — NSF action level. Issue date: 2000-02-11 —
yttrium 7440-65-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Under
NSF/ANSI/CAN 60,
direct additives
containing zinc as an
NSF action level.
zinc 7440-66-6 3 0.3 intentional component
(e.g., zinc
orthophosphate) may
be evaluated at
maximum use levels
136
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
based on 2 mg/L as
zinc.
zirconium 7440-67-7 0.7 0.07 — NSF action level. Issue date: —
NSF action level.
bismuth 7440-69-9 0.4 0.04 —
propanone, 1-, 2-hydroxy-
7473-98-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methyl-1-phenyl-
NOT FOR
NSF action level.
isobornyl methacrylate 7534-94-3 0.03 0.003 0.4 —
NSF action level.
iodine 7553-56-2 0.3 0.1 0.3 —
—
DISTRIBUTION
aconitic acid, tributyl ester 7568-58-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
chloromethyl p-tolyl sulfone 7569-26-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,7-dimethylxanthone 7573-15-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
OR SALE
CAS# 94021-23-5,
CAS# 2235-43-0, and
CAS# 15505-05-2.
2-ethylhexyl
7659-86-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
mercaptoacetate
ammonia 7664-41-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
supraene 7683-64-9 0.01 0.01 — —
trans-hexahydrophthalide 7702-72-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
10 1 10 NSF action level. Detections shall be
bromine 7726-95-6
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2011-09-21 summed with the
137
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
following chemical:
CAS# 24959-67-9.
WQA action level.
1,2-dimethoxypropane 7778-85-0 0.01 0.01 — —
40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62.
selenium 7782-49-2 0.05 0.005 — Health Canada MAC. —
Issue date: 2014-03
NOT FOR
Pass/fail values
represent the
chlorine (free as Cl2) 7782-50-5 4 0.4 — 40 CFR § 141.65 maximum residual
disinfectant level
(MRDL).
DISTRIBUTION
NSF action level.
cerium chloride 7790-86-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 —
toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.003 0.0003 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
Detections shall be
summed with the
OR SALE
CAS# 139-08-2,
alkyl dimethylbenzyl 3 0.3 5 NSF action level. CAS# 53516-76-0,
8001-54-5
CAS# 63449-41-2,
CAS# 68391-01-5,
CAS# 68424-85-1, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
Alternate
mineral oil (high viscosity, NSF action level.
8012-95-1 700 70 700 CAS #8042-47-5
≥ 11 centistokes) External peer review date: 2004-04-24
(white).
mineral oil (medium and Alternate
NSF action level.
low viscosity Class I, 8012-95-1 700 70 700 CAS #8042-47-5
8.5 to 11 centistokes) (white).
138
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
NSF action level.
low viscosity Class II, 8012-95-1 40 4 40 CAS #8042-47-5
7.0 to 8.5 centistokes) (white).
NSF action level.
low viscosity Class III, 8012-95-1 1 0.1 2 CAS #8042-47-5
3.0 to 7.0 centistokes) (white).
polyoxyethylene (6) lauryl
— — —
NOT FOR
9002-92-0 0.05 NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28
ether
Detections shall be
summed with the
polyoxyethylene (9) octyl 0.05
9002-93-1 — — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28 following chemicals:
phenol (total)
polyoxyethylene
DISTRIBUTION
(40) octyl phenol.
Detections shall be
summed with the
polyoxyethylene (40) octyl 0.05
9002-93-1 — — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28 following chemicals:
phenol (total)
polyoxyethylene
OR SALE
(9) octyl phenol.
NSF action level.
PEG stearyl ether 9005-00-9 0.01 0.01 — —
Detections shall be
summed with the
polyoxyethylene sorbitan 1 NSF action level. following chemicals:
9005-64-5 — —
monolaurate (total) Issue date: 1997-01 CAS# 9005-65-6,
CAS# 9005-66-7, and
CAS# 9005-67-8.
Detections shall be
summed with the
9005-65-6 — —
monooleate (total) Issue date: 1997-01 CAS# 9005-64-5,
CAS# 9005-66-7, and
CAS# 9005-67-8.
polyoxyethylene sorbitan 1 NSF action level. Detections shall be
9005-66-7 — —
monopalmitate (total) Issue date: 1997-01 summed with the
139
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 9005-64-5,
CAS# 9005-65-6, and
CAS# 9005-67-8.
Detections shall be
summed with the
9005-67-8 — —
NOT FOR
monosteartate (total) Issue date: 1997-01 CAS# 9005-64-5,
CAS# 9005-65-6, and
CAS# 9005-66-7.
polyoxyethylene sorbitan NSF action level.
9005-71-4 — 0.05 — —
tristearate Issue date: 1996-12
DISTRIBUTION
polyoxyethylene (6)
9014-92-0 — 0.01 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28 —
dodecyl phenol
polyoxyethylene (9)
9014-92-0 — 0.05 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28 —
dodecyl phenol
polyoxyethylene (40)
— — —
OR SALE
9014-92-0 0.05 NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28
dodecyl phenol
Detections of each
specified
polyoxyethylene (4, 9, 15, 0.05 polyoxyethylene length
9016-45-9 — — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28
30, or 40) nonyl phenol (total) shall be summed and
not exceed the
specified criteria.
Detections of each
specified
polyoxyethylene (6 or 20) 0.01 polyoxyethylene length
9016-45-9 — — NSF action level. Issue date: 1996-12-28
nonyl phenol (total) shall be summed and
not exceed the
specified criteria.
oxirane, methyl, polymer
9038-95-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
and oxibane, butyl ether
140
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
poly(oxy(methyl-1,2-
ethanediyl)), alpha-2- 9042-19-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propenyl-omega-hydroxy-
sodium
9084-06-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
polynaphthalenesulfonate
Detections shall be
—
NOT FOR
hydrazine sulfate 10034-93-2
CAS# 302-01-2.
heptanol, 2-propyl-1- 10042-59-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Pass/fail values
represent the
DISTRIBUTION
chlorine dioxide (as ClO2) 10049-04-4 0.8 0.8 — 40 CFR § 141.65 maximum residual
disinfectant level
(MRDL).
Detections shall be
OR SALE
cis-1,3-dichloropropene 10061-01-5 —
(total) (total) Agency consensus date: 2000-04-20 following chemical:
CAS# 10061-02-6.
Detections shall be
trans-1,3-dichloropropene 10061-02-6 —
(total) (total) Agency consensus date: 2000-04-20 following chemical:
CAS# 10061-01-5.
Detections shall be
summed with the
0.00008 0.000008 WQA actional level. following chemicals:
lanthanum chloride 10099-58-8 —
CAS# 10099-59-9, and
CAS# 10099-60-2.
Detections shall be
0.00008 0.000008 WQA actional level. summed with the
lanthanum nitrate 10099-59-9 —
(total as La) (total as La) External peer review date: 2017-10-17 following chemicals:
CAS# 917-70-4,
141
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 10099-58-8, and
CAS# 10099-60-2.
Detections shall be
summed with the
0.00008 0.000008 WQA actional level. following chemicals:
lanthanum sulfate 10099-60-2 —
CAS# 10099-58-8, and
NOT FOR
CAS# 10099-59-9.
2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilo- NSF action level.
10222-01-2 0.4 0.09 2 —
propionamide External peer review date: 2004-04-20
n-hexyl-butanamide 10264-17-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
N-butyl-N,4-dimethyl- WQA action level.
10285-91-3 0.01 0.01 — —
benzenesulfonamide JPRSC consensus date: 2014-08-13
1-[2-(dimethylamino)
10336-55-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl]-ethanone
OR SALE
(1-methyl-3-butenyl)-
10340-49-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene
DL-camphorquinone 10373-78-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexadiene-1-one,
2,6-di-tert-butyl-4- 10396-80-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hydroxy-4-methyl-2,5-
chloroethane, 1-butoxy-2- 10503-96-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
N-nitroso-N- US EPA 10-5/10-6 cancer risk levels.
10595-95-6 0.00003 0.000003 — —
methylethylamine Verification date: 2016-12-01
Pass/fail values
represent the
chloramines (total as Cl2) 10599-90-3 4 0.4 — 40 CFR § 141.65 maximum residual
disinfectant level
(MRDL).
methyltetrahydrophthalic 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level. Detections shall be
11070-44-3
anhydride (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2012-10-17 summed with the
142
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 85-42-7.
CAS# 85-43-8,
CAS# 25134-21-8, and
CAS# 25550-51-0.
gross alpha particle activity 12587-46-1 15 pCi/L 1.5 pCi/L — 40 CFR § 141.15 —
beta particle and photon
NOT FOR
12587-47-2 4 mrem/y 0.4 mrem/y — 40 CFR § 141.16 —
activity
cresol, 2-tert-butyl-m- 13037-79-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
terbufos 13071-79-9 0.001 0.0001 — —
Issue date: 1987-01
DISTRIBUTION
Detections shall be
summed with other
3-methyl-1,1-diphenylurea 13114-72-2
class-based
OR SALE
evaluation level.
1-octene, 6-methyl- 13151-10-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,2’-azobis
13217-66-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(2-amidinopropane)
2,5-diethylpyrazine 13238-84-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
WQA action level.
1-pentadecene 13360-61-7 0.01 0.01 — —
Detections shall be
90 9 90
NSF action level. summed with the
titanium dioxide 13463-67-7 (total (total (total
External peer review date: 2003-09-04 following chemical:
as Ti) as Ti) as Ti)
CAS# 7440-32-6.
docosane, 11-butyl- 13475-76-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
13481-95-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
143
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
1-chloro-4-
(1-chloroethenyl)- 13547-06-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexene
1-chloro-5-
(1-chloroethenyl)- 13547-07-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexene
sodium ferrocyanide 13601-19-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 76025-08-6,
tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) 0.4 0.04 2 NSF action level.
13674-84-5 CAS# 76649-15-5,
DISTRIBUTION
phosphate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-04-19
CAS# 6145-73-9,
CAS# 137888-35-8,
and
CAS# 137909-40-1.
1-propene, 3-(2-(2-
OR SALE
13752-97-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)-
2-butanamine 13952-84-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
5 pCi/L 0.5 pCi/L summed with the
radium 226 13982-63-3 — 40 CFR § 141.15
(total) (total) following chemical:
CAS# 15262-20-1.
pentanedioic acid,
2-methyl-, 1,5-dimethyl 14035-94-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ester
WQA action level.
N,N-dibutylbutanamide 14287-95-7 0.2 0.02 3 —
3-methyl-2-biphenylamine 14294-33-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzylbenzenecarbo-
14309-89-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
thiamide
D-acetone glycerol 14347-78-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
144
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with the
trans-cinnamaldehyde 14371-10-9 — CAS# 104-54-1,
CAS# 104-55-2,
CAS# 140-10-3, and
CAS# 621-82-9.
NOT FOR
decanamide, N,N-dimethyl- 14433-76-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-methoxythiazole 14542-13-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
fenchyl alcohol, alpha- 14575-74-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nitrate (as N) 14797-55-8 10 1 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
DISTRIBUTION
nitrate + nitrite (both as N) 14797-55-8 10 1 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
nitrite (as N) 14797-65-0 1 0.1 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.62 —
Compliance to SPACs
based on US State or
OR SALE
other regulatory levels
US EPA Interim Health Advisory.
perchlorate 14797-73-0 0.015 0.005 — may be demonstrated
Issue Date: 2008
by establishing the
SPAC as 1/3 of the
regulatory level.
(E)-4-octene 14850-23-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Health Canada MAC.
chlorate 14866-68-3 1 0.3 — —
Issue date: 2008-06
chlorite 14998-27-7 1 0.1 — 40 CFR § 141.64 —
furan, tetrahydro-2,2,5,5-
15045-43-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetramethyl-
4-hydroxy-3-
15174-69-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylbenzaldehyde
benzeneacetic acid,
15206-55-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alpha-oxo-, methyl ester
145
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
5 pCi/L 0.5 pCi/L summed with the
radium 228 15262-20-1 — 40 CFR § 141.15
(total) (total) following chemical:
CAS# 13982-63-3.
Detections shall be
summed with the
NOT FOR
CAS# 7611-50-9,
CAS# 94021-23-5, and
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 2235-43-0.
2-methyl-1,5-
15520-10-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentanediamine
bromate 15541-45-4 0.010 0.0033 — 40 CFR § 141.64 —
trimethylolpropane NSF action level.
OR SALE
15625-89-5 0.4 0.04 0.9 —
triacrylate External peer review date: 2019-10-22
cis-1,2-
15753-50-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexanedimethanol
dimethylbenzaldehyde, 2,4- 15764-16-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzyltriphenylphospho-
15853-35-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nium
octane, 2,2-dimethyl- 15869-87-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alachlor 15972-60-8 0.002 0.0002 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
thiocyanic acid,
15973-81-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
o-anilinophenyl ester
1,4-thoxane 15980-15-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5- NSF action level.
16079-88-2 50 9 — —
norbornene,
16219-75-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5-ethylidene-2-
146
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2,4-dimethylbenzyl alcohol 16308-92-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-methyl-4-
16327-48-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phosphorinanone
erythrosine 16423-68-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bromophenylbenzene
16468-97-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulfonamide
NOT FOR
1,2,3,4,6,8-alpha-
hexahydro-1-isopropyl- 16728-99-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4,7-dimethylnaphthalene
hexane, 2,3,4-trimethyl 16747-26-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Operational control
DISTRIBUTION
range of 0.6 mg/L to
1.0 mg/L
1.0 US CDC Recommended Operational recommended to meet
(direct Control Range for Optimal Fluoride target level of 0.7 mg/L
fluoride 16984-48-8 1.0 additive) — Concentration in Community Water for prevention of tooth
OR SALE
0.1 Systems, 83 Fed Reg 32666-32667 decay, and to reduce
(contaminant) (July, 2018) the risk of dental
fluorosis.
83 Fed Reg 32666-
32667 (July, 2018)
Detections shall be
summed with the
1,6,11,16- 3 0.4 3 NSF action level. following chemicals:
17043-02-6
tetraoxacycloeicosane (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2002-10-04 CAS# 295-63-6,
CAS# 56890-57-4, and
CAS# 64001-05-4.
NSF action level.
chlorosulfamic acid 17172-27-9 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
4-acetamidobenzaldehyde
n-(4-methoxyphenyl) 17224-12-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
imine
147
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with other
3,3'-(4-methylbenzene-1,3- 0.05 0.05 0.8 NSF action level. chemicals under the
17526-94-2
diyl)bis(1,1-dimethylurea) (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-17 alkyl-substituted urea
class-based
evaluation level.
NSF action level.
diethyl 2-ethoxysuccinate 17596-10-0 2 0.2 2 —
NOT FOR
benzene, 2-ethoxyethenyl- 17655-74-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-(1-indanyliden)indan 17666-94-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tert-octyl isothiocyanate 17701-76-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
benzenemethanol,
17849-38-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-chloro-
2(3H)-benzoxazolimine
18034-93-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-methyl-
phenol, o-(alpha, alpha-
18168-40-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
dimethylbenzyl)-
tetraethyleneglycol di- WQA action level.
18268-70-7 0.01 0.01 — —
(2-ethylhexoate) JPRSC consensus date: 2019-01-08
1-methoxy-4-(1-methyl-2-
18272-83-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propenyl)-benzene
ethanedioic acid,
18294-04-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bis(trimethylsilyl)ester
hexadecanoic acid,
(2,2-dimethyl-1,3-
18418-21-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dioxolan-4-yl) methyl
ester
1-nonadecene 18435-45-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadien-3-ol,
18479-54-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,7-dimethyl-4,6-
spiro-
18501-56-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
[bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-
148
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2,2’-[1,3]-dioxolane]-3-
one, 1,7,7-trimethyl-
chromium VI 18540-29-9 0.02 0.002 — —
propenone, (dihydroxy
—
NOT FOR
18956-15-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
methoxyphenyl) phenyl-
Detections shall be
summed with other
1,1,3-triethylurea 19006-59-8
DISTRIBUTION
class-based
evaluation level.
hexamethylenebisguanidin
19010-47-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
e
phosphonic acid,
—
OR SALE
19047-85-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
dioctadecyl ester
benzimidazolone, 4-methyl- 19190-68-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
NSF action level.
methyl m-hydroxybenzoate 19438-10-9 0.01 0.01 — —
1,3-dioxolane,
2,2-dipropanoic acid, 19719-88-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diethyl ester
benzoxazole, N-methyl-2- 19776-98-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,3-dimethyl-2-pentanol 19781-24-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4,4’-methylenebis NSF action level.
19900-69-7 0.05 0.05 0.05 —
(2,6-diisopropylaniline) External peer review date: 2009-10-29
tau-muurolol 19912-62-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
149
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
phenylenediamine,
N,N-bis(1,3-
19929-72-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-
p-
glycidyl 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5- NSF action level.
19932-27-5 0.0008 0.00008 0.0008 —
octafluoropentyl ether External peer review date: 2015-10-21
3-oxazolidine ethanol 20073-50-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Detections shall be
summed with the
3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-
0.06 0.006 0.8 NSF action level. following chemicals:
hydroxyphenyl) propionic 20170-32-5
acid
CAS# 82304-66-3, and
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 138345-00-3.
Detections shall be
summed with the
OR SALE
acid), xNa salt CAS# 7611-50-9,
CAS# 94021-23-5,
CAS# 2235-43-0, and
CAS# 15505-05-2.
hexen-2-one, 3-,
20685-46-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,4-dimethyl-
NSF action level.
4-formylbenzophenone 20912-50-9 0.01 0.01 0.01 —
pentachlorobenzonitrile 20925-85-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,5-pyridinedicarboxylic
acid, 1,4-dihydro-4-
20970-65-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-2,6-diphenyl
diethyl ester
Health Canada MAC
metribuzin 21087-64-9 0.08 0.008 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
150
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
tonalid 21145-77-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-propanol,
21460-36-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-(2-propenyloxy)-
2-(thiocyanomethylthio)
21564-17-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzothiazole
hedycaryol 21657-90-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Health Canada MAC.
cyanazine 21725-46-2 0.01 0.001 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
3,3-dimethoxy-2-butanone 21983-72-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethanone, 1-[4-
22072-50-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(methoxymethyl)phenyl]-
DISTRIBUTION
methyl-1 bicyclo[4.2.0]octa-
22250-74-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3,5-triene, 3-
tetradecanoic acid,
22413-00-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
eicosylester
octadien-3-ol,
—
OR SALE
22460-59-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
2,6-dimethyl-1,7-
trans-2,4-diphenyl-4-
22768-22-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-2-pentene
Health Canada MAC.
bendiocarb 22781-23-3 0.04 0.004 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
methyl mercury 22967-92-6 0.0007 0.00007 — —
oxamyl (vydate) 23135-22-0 0.2 0.02 — 40 CFR § 141.60, 40 CFR § 141.61 —
hydroxy (hydroxymethyl)
23470-00-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethyl hexadecanoate
pyridine,
1,2,3,6-tetrahydro- 23513-16-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2,4,6-tetramethyl-, cis-
alpha-amorphene 23515-88-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
151
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
cyanovaleric acid 23886-52-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,1-(3,3-dimethyl-1-
23586-64-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butenylidene)bisbenzene
ethyl-4-ethoxybenzoate 23676-09-7 0.05 0.05 — NSF action level. Issue date: 1999-11-17 —
5-methyl-6,7-dihydro-(5H)-
23747-48-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclopentapyrazine
NOT FOR
pentaoxahexadecanol 23778-52-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethanediamide,
N-(2-ethoxyphenyl)-N’-(2- 23949-66-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethylphenyl)-
cyclopentanol, 2-methyl- 24070-77-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
pyrido(3,2-d) pyrimidin-4
24410-22-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(3d)-one
aniline, 2-ethyl-6-methyl- 24549-06-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-methyl-1-indanone 24644-78-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
acetophenone,
24650-42-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,2-dimethoxy-2-phenyl-
cis-3,3,5-trimethylcyclo-
24691-16-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hexyl acetate
Detections shall be
10 1 10 NSF action level. summed with the
bromide 24959-67-9
CAS# 7726-95-6.
3-formylbenzonitrile 24964-64-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
styrene, methyl-
25013-15-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(mixed isomers)
Detections shall be
summed with the
methyl nadic anhydride 25134-21-8 following chemicals:
CAS# 85-42-7,
CAS# 85-43-8,
152
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 11070-44-3, and
CAS# 25550-51-0.
decadien-1-al, trans,trans-
25152-84-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,4-
The listed criteria are
applicable to all
isomers of nonyl
NOT FOR
phenol. Due to the
significant number of
CAS# s associated
with potential isomers,
nonyl phenol 0.07 0.007 0.3 NSF action level.
25154-52-3 only CAS# 25154-52-3
DISTRIBUTION
(mixed isomers) (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-05-05
and CAS# 84852-15-3
are included in this
table. All isomer
detections shall be
summed and
OR SALE
compared to the listed
criteria.
Detections shall be
summed with the
2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3- CAS# 77-68-9,
pentanediol 25265-77-4 CAS# 144-19-4,
monoisobytyrate CAS# 6846-50-0,
CAS# 74367-33-2,
CAS# 74367-34-3, and
CAS# 74381-40-1.
NSF action level.
polyethylene glycol 25322-68-3 20 2 20 —
ethylphenol 25429-37-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
153
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with the
methylhexahydrophthalic 0.05 0.05 0.05 NSF action level.
25550-51-0 CAS# 85-42-7,
CAS# 85-43-8,
CAS# 11070-44-3, and
CAS# 25134-21-8.
NOT FOR
benzofuran, methyl- 25586-38-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
poly(dimethyl diallyl
NSF action level.
ammonium chloride) 26062-79-3 5 2 5 —
(polyDADMAC)
methylisothiazolinone
DISTRIBUTION
26172-54-3 0.003 0.003 0.01 TOE —
hydrochloride
methylchloroisothiazolinone 26172-55-4 0.003 0.003 0.01 TOE —
tris(3-chloropropyl)
26248-87-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phosphate
OR SALE
ethan-1-one,
26444-19-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-(methylphenyl)-
Pass/fail criteria only
for specifed mixture
containing 80%
2,4-toluene
NSF action level.
toluene diisocyanate 26471-62-5 0.008 0.0008 — diisocyanate
Issue date: 1999-06
(CAS# 584-84-9)
and 20% 2,6-toluene
diisocyanate
(CAS# 91-08-7).
trichlorotrifluoroethane 26523-64-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2H,8H-benzo[1,2-b:5,4-
b’]dipyran-10-propanol,
26535-37-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5-methoxy-2,2,8,8-
tetramethyl-
dioctyldiphenylamine 26603-23-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
154
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
isooctanol 26952-21-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenemethanol,
27129-87-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3,5-dimethyl
naphthalene, ethyl 27138-19-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dipropylene glycol
27138-31-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dibenzoate
NOT FOR
phenol,
27193-28-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)
4,4'-bis(2-
27344-41-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulfostyryl)biphenyl
propenoic acid,
DISTRIBUTION
2-methyl-2-, polymer with
27401-06-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecyl-2-methyl-2-
propenoate
cyclohexenecarbonitrile 27456-25-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
diethylene glycol
OR SALE
monomethacrylate 27598-43-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
homopolymer
ammonium chloride,
octadecyldimethyl{3- 27668-52-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(trimethoxysilyl)propyl}
(5α,9α,10β)-kauran-16-ol 27898-42-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-ethyl-3-(phenylmethyl)-
28122-24-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene
2,6-dimethyl-1-
28122-29-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(phenylmethyl)-benzene
benzothiazole, ethylamino- 28291-69-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzothiazole,
28291-75-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(cyclohexylamino)-
IAPMO action level.
diisononyl phthalate 28553-12-0 0.8 0.08 — —
155
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
cyclohexanone,
28746-99-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(1-hydroxycyclohexyl)-
poly(hexamethylene) NSF action level.
28757-47-3 2 0.7 3 —
biguanide External peer review date. 2018-10-24
naphthalene, dimethyl- 28804-88-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
formylmethylenetriphenyl-
28900-91-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phosphorane
NOT FOR
methylindene 29036-25-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hydroxyethylidene
diphosphonic acid, 29329-71-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sodium salt
DISTRIBUTION
2-methyl-5-propylpyrazine 29461-03-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclooctadiene, dichloro- 29480-42-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyridine, trimethyl- 29611-84-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cadina-1,4-diene 29837-12-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
di-propylene glycol n-butyl NSF action level.
29911-28-2 2 0.2 30 —
ether External peer review date: 2002-10-03
dioxolane-1,3, 4-ethyl 29921-38-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclopentane, trimethyl 30498-64-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenylcyclohexene 31017-40-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dodecane, 2,6,11-trimethyl- 31295-56-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with other
cyclohexylurea, dimethyl- 31468-12-9
class-based
evaluation level.
binaphthyl sulfone 32390-26-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bromophenol 32762-51-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
156
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
octadecanoic acid,
(2,2-dimethyl-1,3-
32852-69-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dioxolan-4-yl) methyl
ester
ethane,
1-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-2- 33675-75-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl-
NOT FOR
benzenediamine,
33786-89-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5-chloro-1,3-
4-butoxy-1-butene 34061-76-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dihydrofuran, 4-methyl-2,3- 34314-83-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
valeronitrile, 2,4-dimethyl- 34372-09-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5,6,7,8-
34413-35-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetrahydrochinoxaline
3,5-dichlorophenyl
34893-92-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isocyanate
OR SALE
methylthioacetonitrile 35120-10-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
35447-99-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trien-7-ol
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-hepta-
benzoic acid,
mixed isomers 35915-19-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(2,4- or 2,5-dichloro-)
aminopiperidine,
36768-62-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4, 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-
phenol, 2,4-dibromo-,
36914-79-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acetate
NSF action level.
bioban P-1487 37304-88-4 0.4 0.04 2 —
157
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
bisphenol A
bis(polypropylene glycol) 37353-75-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ether
oxamide, di-tert-butyl- 37486-48-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
NOT FOR
CAS# 58705-51-4,
octylphenoxypentaethoxy- 0.1 0.01 0.5 NSF action level.
37809-81-7 CAS# 49796-75-0,
ethanol, tert- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2018-04-11
CAS# 38621-31-7,
CAS# 2315-62-0,
CAS# 2315-63-1, and
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 2315-64-2.
4-ethyl-1-oxide-quinazoline 37920-75-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butanetricarboxylic acid,
37971-36-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-phosphono-, 1,2,4-
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 58705-51-4,
octaphenyl pentaethylene 0.1 0.01 0.5 NSF action level.
38621-31-7 CAS# 49796-75-0,
glycol ether, tert- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2018-04-11
CAS# 37809-81-7,
CAS# 2315-62-0,
CAS# 2315-63-1, and
CAS# 2315-64-2.
Detections shall be
summed with other
urea, pentyl- 38869-91-9
class-based
evaluation level.
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
octachlorodibenzofuran
158
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dibenzo-p-dioxin
lanthanum hydroxide 39377-54-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,3-dichloro-2-
39920-37-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isocyanatobenzene
methyl, 4-acetyl-3-
39971-36-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methoxybenzoate
NOT FOR
1,2,3,7,8-penta-
40321-76-4 0.00000003 0.000000003 — US EPA toxic equivalency factor: 1 —
n-ethyl-3-methoxyaniline 41115-30-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,2-dichloro-3-
41195-90-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
isocyanatobenzene
phenoxypropanol, 1- (or 2-) 41593-38-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
propane, 1,1-dimethoxy-2-
41632-89-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl
dihydrodicyclopentadienol 42554-02-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
tripropylene glycol NSF action level.
42978-66-5 0.08 0.008 1 —
diacrylate External peer review date: 2015-05-06
2-propene-1-amine,
44898-60-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n,n-(1-methylethyl)-
propanaminium chloride,
N,N,N-trimethyl-3-((1- 45021-77-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxo-2-propenyl)amino)-1-
3,3,4-trimethyldecane 49622-18-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
ethanol, 2-[2-[2-[2[(1,1,3,3- following chemicals:
tetramethylbutyl)phenoxy 49796-75-0 CAS# 58705-51-4,
]ethoxy]ethoxy]- CAS# 38621-31-7,
CAS# 37809-81-7,
CAS# 2315-62-0,
159
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 2315-63-1, and
CAS# 2315-64-2.
tetrahydrofuran, diphenyl- 50637-09-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimethylcyclohexanone 50874-76-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran
NOT FOR
Health Canada MAC.
metolachlor 51218-45-2 0.05 0.005 — —
Issue date: 1986-02
Health Canada MAC.
diclofop-methyl 51338-27-3 0.009 0.0009 — —
Issue date: 1987-03
1-tert-butoxy-2-
51422-54-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
ethoxyethane
phenol, (phenylethyl)- 51937-33-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
52355-31-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl ester
decanedioic acid,
OR SALE
bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 52829-07-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
piperidinyl)-
hexen-2-one,
53252-21-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-, 3,4-dimethyl-
NSF action level.
di(2-propylheptyl) phthalate 53306-54-0 0.4 0.04 2 —
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 139-08-2,
alkyl (C12-C18)
3 0.3 5 NSF action level. CAS# 8001-54-5,
dimethylbenzyl 53516-76-0
ammonium chloride
CAS# 63449-41-2,
CAS# 68391-01-5,
CAS# 68424-85-1, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
160
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
n-(2,2-dimethylpropyl)-n-
53927-61-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-benzenamine
2,5-dimethylbenzyl alcohol 53957-33-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2H-pyranmethanol,
54004-46-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetrahydro-2,5-dimethyl
benzene,
54120-62-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethyl-1,2,4-trimethyl-
NOT FOR
1-(1-methoxyethoxy)-3- WQA action level.
54340-97-5 0.05 0.005 — —
hexene JPRSC consensus date: 2016-02-10
1-(2-methyl-1-pyrrolo(2,1,5-
54398-68-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Cd)-indolizinyl)ethanone
—
DISTRIBUTION
4,6,8-trimethyl-1-nonene 54410-98-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
ethanone, 1-(4-(1-hydroxy-
54549-72-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-methylethyl)phenyl)-
ethanol, 2-(4-(1-
54576-35-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylethyl)phenoxy)-
OR SALE
methylcarbamate,
54644-60-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl N-butyl-N-
2-furanmethanol,
tetrahydro-5-methyl, 54774-28-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trans-
2H-pyrano[2,3f]isoquinolin-
54852-71-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-one
1,1’-(1,2-dimethyl-1,2-
ethanediyl)bis- 54889-87-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexane
benzeneacetic acid,
α-(acetyloxy)-α-methyl- 55012-78-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ester
3,5-dicyclohexyl-4-hydroxy-
55125-23-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzoic acid methyl ester
1,5-pentanediol,
55162-82-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
monobenzoate
161
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
pyrrolidinone, 1-decyl-2- 55257-88-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1,4-dimethyl-2-octadecyl-
55282-02-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cyclohexane
1-hexadecyl-2,3-dihydro-
55334-29-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1H-indene
55337-80-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trene, 7-methyl-
NOT FOR
1H-Indene-4-methanol,
55591-09-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,3-dihydro-1,1-dimethyl-
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-hepta-
chlorodibenzofuran
6,7-diethyl-1,2,3,4-
DISTRIBUTION
tetrahydro-1,2,3,4- 55741-10-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tetramethyl-
n-(3-butenyl)dimethylamine 55831-89-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-propanol, 1-[1-methyl-2-
55956-25-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
(2-propenyloxy)ethoxy]-
chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone with 2-
55965-84-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone
3-ethyl-4-phenyl-2(3H)-
55976-02-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
thiazolethione
1,3-dimethoxy-5,7-
56008-53-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dihydrobenz[c,e]oxepine
benzene,1,1’-[(1-
propenylthio)methylene] 56195-65-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bis-, (E)-
benzene, 1,1’-[(1-
propenylthio)methylene] 56195-66-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bis-, (Z)-
162
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2-(2-(2-
mercaptoethoxy)ethoxy)- 56282-36-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethanol
diazacyclotetradecane-2,9-
56403-09-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dione, 1,8-
isoindole, 2H-, 4,7-dione 56460-94-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(2-phenyl-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)
NOT FOR
methyl ester 56599-43-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octadecanoic acid
4,4,5-trimethyl-2-
56599-79-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pentadecyl-1,3-dioxolane
Detections shall be
DISTRIBUTION
summed with the
1,6,11,16,21-
3 0.4 3 NSF action level. following chemicals:
pentaoxacyclopenta- 56890-57-4
cosane
CAS# 17043-02-6, and
CAS# 64001-05-4.
OR SALE
2,3,4,7,8- penta-
chlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-penta-
chlorodibenzofuran
dibenzofuran
6-oxabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-7-
one, 1,5-dimethyl-8-[2-[3-
57119-17-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(1-methylethyl)phenyl]
ethyl]-, (1R-syn)-
n-ethyl-n,4-
dimethylbenzene- 57186-68-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulfonamide
1-phenanthrenecarboxylic
57345-30-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid
163
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
57396-98-2 0.003 0.0003 — TOE —
methyl ester
dibenzo-p-dioxin
cresol, alpha-ethoxy-p- 57726-26-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,2-dimethyl-bis(1-
methylpropyl)ester 57923-28-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
butanedioic acid
Detections shall be
summed with the
(ethoxymethoxy) 0.05 0.05 4 NSF action level.
58567-11-6 following chemicals:
cyclododecane (total) (total) (total)) External peer review date: 2014-04-22
CAS# 830-13-7 and
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 1724-39-6.
Detections shall be
summed with the
ethanol, 2-[2-[2-[(1,1,3,3- CAS# 49796-75-0,
OR SALE
tetramethylbutyl)phenoxy 58705-51-4 CAS# 38621-31-7,
]ethoxy]ethoxy]- CAS# 37809-81-7,
CAS# 2315-62-0,
CAS# 2315-63-1, and
CAS# 2315-64-2.
1,3,6,8-pyrenetetrasulfonic
59572-10-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid, tetrasodium salt
1-methoxy-2-t-butyl-6-
60772-80-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylbenzene
dibenzofuran
3-butene-1-amine, n-ethyl-
61308-10-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
n-methyl-
castor oil, hydrogenated,
61788-85-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethoxylated
164
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
Detections shall be
summed with the
CAS# 139-08-2,
alkyl dimethylbenzyl 3 0.3 5 NSF action level. CAS# 8001-54-5,
61789-71-7
CAS# 63449-41-2,
NOT FOR
CAS# 68391-01-5,
CAS# 68424-85-1, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
quaternary ammonium,
61789-80-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ditallow dimethyl chloride
DISTRIBUTION
amines, coco alkyl,
61791-14-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethoxylated
soya alkylamines,
61791-24-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethoxylated
a-methyl-a-(1-methyl-2-
OR SALE
propenyl)- 61967-11-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzenemethanol
octane, 2,2,6-trimethyl 62016-28-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,6,7-trimethyl decane 62108-25-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,4,6-trimethyl-decane 62108-27-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl (1-phenyl-2-propyl)
62252-49-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
thioether
polydimethylsiloxane 63148-62-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
quinoline, 3,4-dihydro-
63177-93-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2,4,4-trimethyl-
benzothiazole, 2-methoxy- 63321-86-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
alkyl (C8-C18)
3 0.3 5 NSF action level. summed with the
(total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2014-10-21 following chemicals:
ammonium chloride
CAS# 139-08-2,
165
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 8001-54-5,
CAS# 53516-76-0,
CAS# 61789-71-7,
CAS# 68391-01-5,
CAS# 68424-85-1, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
pyridine, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-
63867-76-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
Detections shall be
summed with the
1,6,11,16,21,26- 3 0.4 3 NSF action level. following chemicals:
64001-05-4
hexaoxacyclotriacontane (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2002-10-04 CAS# 295-63-6,
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 17043-02-6, and
CAS# 56890-57-4.
3-methyl-3-(2-methyl-3-
64042-54-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzofuranyl)phthalide
diphenylamine,
—
OR SALE
64092-29-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
4-(diisopropylamino)
3-methyl-pyrrolo (1,2-A)
64608-61-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
pyrazine
Class-based evaluation
level in which all
high flash aromatic 0.2 0.02 1 NSF action level.
64742-95-6 detected C8-C10
naphtha (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-27
aromatic hydrocarbons
should be summed.
acetamidoacetaldehyde 64790-08-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzalazine 64896-26-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene,
(2-methoxy-1- 65738-46-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylethyl)-
benzoic acid, 2,4,6-tris(1,1-
66415-27-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethylethyl)-
166
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
benzaldehyde,
66949-23-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tert-butylmethyl-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-hepta-
chlorodibenzofuran
castor oil, sulfated, sodium
68187-76-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
salt
Detections shall be
NOT FOR
summed with the
CAS# 139-08-2,
N-alkyl (C12-C18)
DISTRIBUTION
ammonium chloride
CAS# 61789-71-7,
CAS# 63449-41-2,
CAS# 68424-85-1, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
Detections shall be
OR SALE
summed with the
CAS# 139-08-2,
alkyl (C12-C16)
ammonium chloride
CAS# 61789-71-7,
CAS# 63449-41-2,
CAS# 68391-01-5, and
CAS# 85409-22-9.
Detections shall be
diethyltoluenediamine, 0.0006 0.00006 0.0006 NSF action level. summed with the
68479-98-1
mixed isomers (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2010-10-06 following chemical:
CAS# 75389-89-8.
alkenes, C6-10,
hydroformylation 68526-82-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
products, high boiling
167
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
alcohols, C12-C15,
68551-13-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ethoxylated propoxylated
disodium
68604-71-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
cocoamphodiproprionate
benzene, (1-methoxy-4-
68705-86-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methyl-3-pentenyl-
dimethyl ditallow
—
NOT FOR
68783-78-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE
ammonium chloride
PEG/PPG-15/15
68937-55-3 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethicone
alpha-hydro-
omegahydroxypoly(dimet 70131-67-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
hylsiloxane)
1,3,7,7-tetramethyl-2,11-
dioxa-3,5-
70412-52-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
bicyclo(4.4.1)undecadien
-10-one
OR SALE
dibenzofuran
potassium
NSF action level.
peroxymonosulfate 70693-62-8 5 5 20 —
sulfate
benzenedicarboxylic acid,
1,2-, bis(2-propylpentyl) 70910-37-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
ester
acrylic acid sodium
71050-62-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phosphinate polymer
3-isopropoxy-1,1,1,7,7,7-
hexamethyl-3,5,5-
71579-69-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
tris(trimethylsiloxy)tetrasil
oxane
168
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
dibenzofuran
poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
a-isotridecyl-w-hydroxy-, 73038-25-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phosphate
4,4-dimethyl-13α-androst-
73495-94-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
5-ene
NOT FOR
oxononan-1-al, 4- 74327-29-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
summed with the
propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,
CAS# 77-68-9,
DISTRIBUTION
2,2-dimethyl-1-(2- 0.2 0.02 2 WQA action level.
74367-33-2 CAS# 144-19-4,
hydroxy-1- (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-26
CAS# 6846-50-0,
methylethyl)propyl ester
CAS# 25265-77-4,
CAS# 74367-34-3, and
CAS# 74381-40-1.
OR SALE
Detections shall be
summed with the
propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, CAS# 77-68-9,
3-hydroxy-2,4,4- 74367-34-3 CAS# 144-19-4,
trimethylpentyl ester CAS# 6846-50-0,
CAS# 25265-77-4,
CAS# 74367-33-2, and
CAS# 74381-40-1.
Detections shall be
summed with the
propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,
1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2- 0.2 0.02 2 WQA action level.
74381-40-1 CAS# 77-68-9,
methyl-1, 3-propanediyl (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2016-10-26
CAS# 144-19-4,
ester
CAS# 6846-50-0,
CAS# 25265-77-4,
169
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 74367-33-2, and
CAS# 74367-34-3.
3,3-dimethyl-1-octene 74511-51-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
nonylcyclopropane 74663-85-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
Detections shall be
diethyltoluenediamine, 0.0006 0.00006 0.0006 NSF action level. summed with the
75389-89-8
NOT FOR
mixed isomers (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2010-10-06 following chemicals:
CAS# 68479-98-1.
benzyltriphenyl-
phosphonium, salt with
4,4’-(2,2,2-trifluoro-1-
75768-65-9 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
(trifluoromethyl)
ethylidene)bis(phenol)
(1:1)
Detections shall be
summed with the
OR SALE
CAS# 13674-84-5,
bis(1-chloropropan-2-yl) 0.4 0.04 2 NSF action level.
76025-08-6 CAS# 76649-15-5,
2-chloropropyl phosphate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-04-19
CAS# 6145-73-9,
CAS# 137888-35-8,
and
CAS# 137909-40-1.
1-phenyl-4,5-dimorpholino-
76458-32-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4,5-dihydroimidazole
Detections shall be
summed with the
1-chloropropan-2-yl bis(2- 0.4 0.04 2 NSF action level.
76649-15-5 CAS# 13674-84-5,
chloropropyl) phosphate (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-04-19
CAS# 76025-08-6,
CAS# 6145-73-9,
CAS# 137888-35-8,
170
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
and
CAS# 137909-40-1.
decane,
1-methyl-3,5,7-triaza-1-
76902-90-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
azoniatricyclo(3.3.1.1
(3,7))
3,5-di-tert-
80438-67-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
NOT FOR
butylchlorobenzene
1,2 diphenyl-1,2-hexanediol 80475-19-0 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
carbamothioic acid
dimethyl OO’-11’- 81056-07-7 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
biphenyl-22’diyl ester
DISTRIBUTION
Detections shall be
summed with the
oxaspirodecadienedione, 0.06 0.006 0.8 NSF action level. following chemicals:
82304-66-3
di-(t-butyl) (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-18 CAS# 6386-38-5,
CAS# 20170-32-5, and
OR SALE
CAS# 138345-00-3.
2-chloro-4,6-
82485-84-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dimethyoxybenzamine
propanedial,
82700-43-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
2-(phenylmethylene)-
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
NSF action level
cyclohexane-1,4- 84731-70-4 2 0.2 3 —
dicarboxylate
The listed criteria are
applicable to all
isomers of nonyl
nonyl phenol 0.07 0.007 0.3 NSF action level. phenol. Due to the
84852-15-3
(mixed isomers) (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2015-05-05 significant number of
CAS numbers
associated with
potential isomers, only
171
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 25154-52-3 and
CAS# 84852-15-3 are
included in this table.
All isomer detections
shall be summed and
compared to the
listed criteria.
NOT FOR
n-benzoyl-3-
85237-73-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylpiperidine
Detections shall be
summed with the
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 139-08-2,
alkyl (C12-C14)
ammonium chloride
CAS# 61789-71-7,
CAS# 63449-41-2,
OR SALE
CAS# 68391-01-5, and
CAS# 68424-85-1.
ethanol, 2,2'-(((methyl-1H-
benzotriazol-1- 88477-37-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
yl)methyl)imino)bis-
methylene bis(n-iso-
88990-59-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
butylbenzenamine)
naphthalenesulfonic acid,
tripropylene-, methylated, 90459-08-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sodium salts
isoalkanes, C9-C12 90622-57-4 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
90949-18-1 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
90949-19-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
172
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
90949-20-5 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1-ethoxy-2-phenylmethyl
91404-27-2 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
benzene
ethanone,1-[4-
93205-94-8 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
(ethoxymethyl)phenyl]-
Detections shall be
NOT FOR
summed with the
DISTRIBUTION
CAS# 7611-50-9,
CAS# 2235-43-0, and
CAS# 15505-05-2.
tetrathiacyclooctadecane,
1,3,10,12-tetraoxa- 99634-55-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
6,7,15,16-
benzo(b)fluorenone 99707-95-6 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenanthrene-1,2- 100578-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dicarboxylic acid 69-6
cyanobacterial toxin 101043- Health Canada MAC.
0.0015 0.00015 — —
(microcystin-LR) 37-2 Issue date: 2002-04
1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-9-propyl 101580-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
anthracene 33-0
7,8-dihydro-2,4,8,8-
102635-
tetramethyl-6H- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
63-2
cyclohepta[b]pyrrole
3,6-heptanooxepin-4,5-
102652-
dicarbonaure- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
08-4
dimethylester
dimethyl siloxane, hydroxy- 102782-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
term reaction with silica 80-9
173
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
2H-benz[f]isoindole-1-
carbonitrile, 103836-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
8-(dimethylamino)-2-(1,1- 41-5
dimethylethyl)-
4H-benzo[a]quinolizine-1-
carboxylic acid, 104628-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
6,7-dihydro-4-oxo-3- 87-7
NOT FOR
phenyl-, methyl ester
trans-2,6-dimethyl-1,4- 106342-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
dioxane 05-6
benzaldehyde, 106799-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
hydroxymethoxy- 60-4
DISTRIBUTION
(E)-2-hydroxy-4’- 110598-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methoxystilbene 56-6
distillates (petroleum),
catalytic reformer
111163-
fractionator residue, 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
74-7
low-boiling, sulfonated,
sodium salts
ethanone,
112766-
1-[3-(methoxymethyl) 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
37-7
phenyl]-
2-phenylcyclohexane- 113215-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
carboxylic acid 84-2
3-(2-benzoylpropanoyl)-2- 116782-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
oxazolidinone 24-2
1-methylbicyclo[3,2,1] 119972-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
octane 41-7
3,3a,5,11-b-tetrahydro-5-
hydroxy-7-methoxy-5-
121638-
methyl-2H-furo[3,2- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
14-0
b]naphtho[2,3-d]pyran-
2,6,11-trione
174
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
pyridine,
122913-
1,2,3,6-tetrahydro- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
54-6
6-(p-t-butylphenoxy)-1,3-
125023-
dihydro-1,3- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
52-1
diiminoisoindole
polyamino polyether
NOT FOR
130668-
methylene phosphonic 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
24-5
acid
1H-pyrrolo[1,2-a]
134856-
benzimidazole,2,3- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
49-8
dihydro-2-methyl-
DISTRIBUTION
ethyl 6,8-di-t-butyl-2-oxo-
136106-
2H-chromene-4- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
29-1
carboxylate
Detections shall be
summed with the
OR SALE
phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-
137888- 0.4 0.04 2 NSF action level. CAS# 13674-84-5,
1-methylethyl bis
35-8 (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-04-19 CAS# 76649-15-5,
(3-chloropropyl) ester
CAS# 76649-15-5,
CAS# 6145-73-9, and
CAS# 137909-40-1.
Detections shall be
summed with the
phosphoric acid, following chemicals:
bis(2-chloro-1- 137909- 0.4 0.04 2 NSF action level. CAS# 13674-84-5,
methylethyl) 40-1 (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-04-19 CAS# 76649-15-5,
3-chloropropyl ester CAS# 76649-15-5,
CAS# 6145-73-9, and
CAS# 137888-35-8.
7,9-ditert-butyl-1- Detections shall be
138345- 0.06 0.006 0.8 NSF action level.
oxaspiro[4.5]deca-6,9- summed with the
00-3 (total) (total) (total) External peer review date: 2017-10-18
dien-8-one following chemicals:
175
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
CAS# 6386-38-5,
CAS# 20170-32-5, and
CAS# 82304-66-3.
propenamide, 146669-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
3-(2-methylphenyl)-2- 23-0
mono(2-ethylhexyl) 155603-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
terephthalate 50-2
NOT FOR
pyridine,
155904-
1,2,5,6-tetrahydro- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
89-5
acrylate phosphinate- 156105-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
sulphonate copolymer 39-4
DISTRIBUTION
1H-indole, 1,3-dimethyl-
156785-73-
5,6-dimethoxy-(2-(4- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
8
methoxyphenyl))-
trisodium dicarboxymethyl 164462-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
alaninate 16-2
OR SALE
1,2-cyclohexane
166412-78- NSF action level.
dicarboxylic acid, 5 0.5 5 —
8 External peer review date: 2008-10-15
di-isononyl ester (DINCH)
fatty acids, C12-21 and
C18-unsaturated, 167078-06- NSF action level.
0.05 0.05 0.05 —
2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 0 External peer review date: 2010-05-06
piperidinyl esters
phosphino polycarboxylic 174763-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
acid 03-2
pyridine,
200561-41-
2,3,4,5-tetrahydro- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
7
3-methyl-4-phenyl-1-hexen- 344308-86-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4-ol 7
176
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
1,2-cyclohexane
474919-59- NSF action level.
dicarboxylic acid, 5 0.5 5 —
0 External peer review date: 2008-10-15
di-isononyl ester (DINCH)
2-propenoic acid, telomer
514826-
with 2-methyl-2-(1-oxo-2- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
28-9
propenyl)
pentanoic acid,
NOT FOR
2,2,4-trimethyl-3- 1000140-
0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
carboxyisopropyl, 77-5
isobutyl ester
polyamino polyether
1118486-
methylenephosphonate, 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
47-7
sodium salt
poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-
ethanediyl)], α-[2-
[bis(phosphonomethyl)a
1128123-
mino]methylethyl]-ω-[2- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
OR SALE
94-3
[bis(phosphonomethyl)a
mino]methylethoxy]-,
sodium salt
poly(oxy(methyl-1,2-
ethanediyl)), alpha-(2-
aminomethylethyl)-
1252600-
omega-(2- 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
17-1
aminomethylethoxy)-
phosphonomethylated,
sodium salt
butyltin compounds multiple 0.02 0.004
— NSF action level. Issue date: 1991-12-19 —
(mono- and di- only) chemicals (total) (total)
methyltin compounds multiple 0.03 0.006
— NSF action level. Issue date: 1991-12-19 —
(mono- and di- only) chemicals (total) (total)
phenol, 3,5-dibenzyl-2,4,6-
unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
trimethyl-
177
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
tri(1,2-propyleneglycol)
monoethylether
2-methyl-6,7-
(methylenedioxy)-2- unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
phenyl-2H-1-benzopyran
2-methyl-3-(2-
hydroxyphenyl)-3,4-
NOT FOR
dihydro-1(2H)- unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
isoquinoline-4-
carboxylate
tetraethylene glycol
monobutyl monomethyl unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
DISTRIBUTION
ether
BHT aldehyde unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
4,4’-
bis(tetrahydrothiopyran)
2,4-dipropyl-5-ethyl-1,3-
OR SALE
dioxane
bicyclo[5.3.0]decane, 2-
methylene-5-(1- unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
methylvinyl)-8-methyl-
5-hydroxy-1,3,4-trimethoxy-
7-methyl-6- unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
proparagynaphthalene
(3H)indazole, 3,3-dimethyl- unavailable 0.003 0.0003 0.01 TOE —
1The references for criteria based on US primary drinking water regulations are from the US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (Protection of Environment), revised as
of July 1, 2011. This document is available on-line at <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR>. Issue dates are given for criteria based on
Health Canada guidelines. Additional information on the guidelines for these chemicals is available at <hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/index-eng.php#tech_doc.>.
2 NSF action levels have been derived according to the requirements of Section 3.
3 Criteria are derived from the oral RfD on the US EPA IRIS database as follows:
Oral RfD (mg/kg-d) × (70 kg/2 L/d) × RSC factor = TAC (mg/L)
Where:
178
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
70 kg = assumed adult body weight
2 L/d = assumed adult water consumption
RSC factor = percentage of daily exposure to the substance represented by drinking water
(default value is 20%)
Other criteria have been used directly, unless otherwise noted.
4The IRIS verification date represents the date the oral RfD or the cancer risk assessment was peer reviewed by the US EPA. Refer to the online IRIS database for the
NOT FOR
complete update and revision history of the IRIS files. <www.epa.gov/IRIS>
5Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) have been established as a means to compare the potency of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) to individual congeners
of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The US EPA uses an approach to dioxin risk
assessment methodology in which levels of dioxins and furans are analytically determined, the concentration of each congener is multiplied by its respective TEF value,
and all the products are totaled to a single 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent.
DISTRIBUTION
Van den Berg et al., 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and Wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(12):775:792.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Chapter 9: Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Dioxin and Related Compounds. From Exposure and Human Health Risk
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Part II: Health Assessment for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
Related Compounds. NCEA-I-0386. September 2000. SAB Review Draft. <www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/part2/fm-chap9.pdf>
6For the chemicals listed in this table under the threshold of evaluation (TOE), the evaluation criteria are 0.003 mg/L under static conditions, and 0.0003 mg/L under flowing
OR SALE
conditions. If any of these chemicals are detected at concentrations exceeding the TOE, toxicity data shall be reviewed to determine whether specific TAC and SPAC values
can be established, prior to using TOE to determine compliance with the Standard.
7 Effective April 17, 2013, CSA Group, NSF International, IAPMO R&T, UL, and the Water Quality Association use harmonized procedures outlined in Section 3 (previously
Annex A of NSF/ANSI/CAN 60 and NSF/ANSI/CAN 61) to develop action levels for unregulated drinking water contaminants. The Joint Peer Review Steering Committee
(JPRSC) was established by the aforementioned certifying agencies to consolidate current pass/fail criteria and to harmonize the external per review process for future risk
assessments. As part of the consolidation process, pass/fail criteria may be adopted following consensus approval of the members of the JPRSC. Sources of the pass/fail
criteria approved by the JPRSC may include risk assessments submitted by each certifying agency as well as assessments based upon authoritative agencies
(i.e., US EPA, Health Canada).
8TT = treatment technique. For NSF/ANSI/CAN 61 only, the lead and copper rule requirement that defines corrosion control optimization for large systems is based on the
difference between the 90th percentile lead level and the source water lead concentration being less that the practical quantitation level of 5 ppb (Code of Federal Regulations
40 CFR – Part 141.81(b)(3)).
9 For NSF/ANSI/CAN 61, Section 9 products other than supply stops, flexible plumbing connectors, and miscellaneous components, a Q statistic value of 5 μg or 1 μg of
lead is used as the evaluation criterion when the product is evaluated to the requirements of Section 9.5.1, or Section 9.5.1.1.1, respectively. For supply stops, flexible
plumbing connectors, and miscellaneous Section 9 devices, a Q statistic value of 3 μg or 0.5 μg of lead is used as the evaluation criterion when the product is evaluated to
the requirements of Section 9.5.1, or Section 9.5.1.1.1, respectively.
179
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Table 4.1
MCL/MAC
(mg/L)
10Limitations in analytical methods may preclude detection at levels sufficient to report these compounds at or below the SPAC. To the maximum extent possible, testing
laboratories shall seek the lowest detection limits via both sample exposure and analysis.
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
180
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Informative Annex 1
References for toxicology review and evaluation procedures
The information contained in this Annex is not part of this American National Standard (ANS) and
has not been processed in accordance with ANSI’s requirements for an ANS. Therefore, this Annex
may contain material that has not been subjected to public review or a consensus process.
In addition, it does not contain requirements necessary for conformance to the Standard.
Barnes, D. G., Daston, G. P., Evans, J. S., Jarabek, A. M., Kavlock, R. J., Kimmel, C. A., Park, C., and
Spitzer, H. L. (1995). Benchmark Dose Workshop: Criteria for Use of a Benchmark Dose to Estimate a
Reference Dose. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 21, 296-306.
Beck, N.B., Becker, R.A., Erraguntla, N., Farland, W.H., Grant, Gray, G., Kirman, C., LaKind, J.S.,
Lewis, R.J., Nance, P., Pottenger, L.H., Santos, S.L., Shirley, S., Simon, T., and Dourson, M.L. (2016).
Approaches for describing and communicating overall uncertainty in toxicity characterizations: US
Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study.
Environment International 89-90, 110-128.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). (2009). Technical Support Document for Cancer
NOT FOR
Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation, Listing of Available Values, and Adjustments to Allow for
Early Life Stage Exposures. Available at: <http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/tsdcancer
potency.pdf>
The Chicago Manual of Style. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.
DISTRIBUTION
Dourson, M.L. (1994). Methods for establishing oral reference doses (RfDs). In Risk Assessment of
Essential Elements. W. Mertz, C.O. Abernathy, and S.S. Olin (editors), pages 51-61, ILSI Press
Washington, D.C.
OR SALE
Dourson, M.L., Felter, S.P., and Robinson, D. (1996). Evolution of science-based uncertainty factors in
noncancer risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24(2), 108-120.
European Commission. (2004). A compendium of case studies that helped to shape the REACH Guidance
on Chemical Categories and Read-Across. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for
Health and Consumer Protection, Ispra, Italy. Available at: <https://eurl-ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
laboratories-research/predictive_toxicology/doc/EUR_22481_EN.pdf>
European Commission. (2007). The Use of Computational Methods in the Grouping and Assessment of
Chemicals – Preliminary Investigations. EUR 22941 EN-007. European Commission Joint Research Centre
Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Ispra, Italy. Available at: <https://eurl-
ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/laboratories-research/predictive_toxicology/doc/EUR_22941_EN.pdf>
European Commission. (2010). Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Genotoxicity
and Carcinogenicity. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer
Protection, Ispra, Italy. Available at: <https://eurl-ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/laboratories-research/
predictive_toxicology/doc/EUR_24427_EN.pdf>
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2008). Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical
Safety Assessment. Chapter R.6: QSARS and Grouping of Chemicals. Available at: <http://echa.europa.eu/
documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r6_en.pdf>
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2012). Practical Guide 6. How to Report Read-across and
Categories. Available at: <http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13655/pg_report_readacross_en.pdf>
182
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2017). Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF). Available at:
<http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/raaf_en.pdf>
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Review of the
Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach and development of new TTC decision tree. EFSA
Supporting Publication 2016; 13(3):EN-1006, 50 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1006.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) (1994). Environmental Health Criteria No. 170:
Assessing human health risks of chemicals: Derivation of guidance values for health-based exposure limits.
World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). (2005). Chemical-specific adjustment factors for
interspecies differences and human variability: Guidance document for use of data in dose/concentration-
response assessment. World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety. World
Health Organization, Geneva, 2005. Available at: <http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/
9241546786_eng.pdf>
Klaassen, Curtis. (2013) Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, Eighth Edition.
US: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Klimisch, H.J., M. Andreae, and U. Tillman (1997). A Systematic Approach for Evaluating the Quality of
NOT FOR
Experimental Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Data. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 25, 1-5.
Kroes, R., Renwick, A.G., Cheeseman, M., Kleiner, J., Mangelsdorf, I., Piersma, A., Schilter, B.,
Schlatter, J., van Schothorst, F., Vos, J.G., and Wurtzen, G. (2004). Structure Based Thresholds of
Toxicological concern (TTC): Guidance for Application to Substances Present at Low Levels in the Diet.
DISTRIBUTION
Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 65-83.
Meek, M.E., Newhook, R., Liteplo, R.G., and V.C. Armstrong (1994). Approach to assessment of risk to
human health for priority substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Environmental
Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews C12(2), 105-134.
OR SALE
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). (2008). Statement of Need and Reasonableness. Available at:
<http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/water/hrlsonar08.pdf>
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). (2010). Risk Assessment Advice for Incorporating Early-life
Sensitivity into Cancer Risk Assessments for Linear Carcinogens. Available at:
<http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/adafrecmd.pdf>
National Research Council (NRC). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government. Managing the
process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.
Washington DC: National Academies Press.
NSF/ANSI/CAN 60. Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals - Health Effects. NSF International, Ann Arbor,
MI.
NSF/ANSI/CAN 61. Drinking Water System Components - Health Effects. NSF International, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). Guidance on Grouping of
Chemicals, Second Edition. Series on Testing & Assessment. No. 194. ENV/JM/MONO(2014)4.
Available at: <http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2014)
4&doclanguage=en>
183
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
Renwick, A.G. (1993). Data derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental
contaminants. Food Additives and Contaminants. 10(3), 275-205.
TERA (Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment). 1996. Evolution of Science-Based Uncertainty Factors
in Noncancer Risk Assessment. Full Report Prepared for Health and Environmental Sciences Institute
(HESI), Cincinnati, Ohio. Jan. 31, 1996.
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1988). Recommendations for and Documentation of
Biological Values for use in Risk Assessment. EPA/600/6-87/008, February 1988. Available at:
<https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=34855>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1991). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Final
Rule. Federal Register. 56(20):3526-3614.
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1993). Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in
Health Risk Assessments. Background Document 1A. On-line Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1995). The Use of the Benchmark Dose Approach in
Health Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-94/007.
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1996). Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
NOT FOR
Assessment. Federal Register. 61(79):17960 - 18011. EPA/600/P-92/003C. Available at:
<https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/propcra_1996.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2000). Methodology for deriving ambient water quality
criteria for the protection of human health. Office of Water, EPA-822-B-00-004, October 2000. Available at:
DISTRIBUTION
<https://www.epa.gov/wqc/fact-sheet-methodology-deriving-ambient-water-quality-criteria-protection-
human-health-revised>
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-02/002F, December 2002. Available at:
OR SALE
<https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) for
in Tolerance Assessment. Office of Pesticide Programs. February, 2002. Available at:
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjykYPkpYrQAh
WB8oMKHfFlDAgQFgg3MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fsites%2Fproduction%2Ffiles%2F
2015-07%2Fdocuments%2Fdeterm.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEnZg2benPsO6UBfd1zVB4tV5NP4w&sig2=20Qw
Z_TxAQPD94-YrzlllA>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2005a). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.
Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-03/001B, March 2005. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/risk/
guidelines-carcinogen-risk-assessment>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2005b). Supplemental Guidance for Assessing
Susceptibility from Early-life Exposure to Carcinogens. Technical Panel of the Risk Assessment Forum,
EPA/630/R-03/003F, March 2005. Available at: <http://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_
final.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2008). Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-06/096F. Available at:
<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2011a). Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011.
Available at: <https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252>
184
© 2021 NSF NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 – 2021
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2011b). IRIS Glossary. Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) Last updated on August 31, 2011. Available at: <http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/
registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%
20Glossary>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2011c). Recommended Use of Body Weight ¾ as the
Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC,
EPA/100/R11/0001. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/
recommended-use-of-bw34.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2012a). Glossary of Terms: Methods of Toxicity Testing
and Risk Assessment. Last updated September 9, 2012. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/pesticides>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2012b). Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.).
Version 4.1. Available at: <http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/qsar/qsar.html>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2014a). Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to
Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation. EPA/100/R-
14/002F, September 2014. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/
ddef-final.pdf>
NOT FOR
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2014b). Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment
to Inform Decision Making. EPA/100/R-14/001, April 2014. Available from: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2014-12/documents/hhra-framework-final-2014.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2015a). Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria:
DISTRIBUTION
2015 Update. Office of Water, EPA 820-F-15-001, June 2015. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/human-health-2015-update-factsheet.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2015b). Peer Review Handbook. 4th Edition. Science and
Technology Policy Council. EPA/100/B-15/001, October 2015. Available at:
OR SALE
<https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa_peer_review_handbook_4th_edition
.pdf>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2016). Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment. Risk
Assessment Forum. Peer Review Draft, January 2016. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/osa/guidelines-
human-exposure-assessment>
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2019). Exposure Factors Handbook, Chapter 3: Ingestion
of Water and Other Select Liquids. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
<http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=538153>
US Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 Food and Drug Regulations.
US Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 Good Laboratory Practices.
US Food Quality Protection Act. 1996. 7 USC 136.
US Safe Drinking Water Act. 1996. Section 1412(b)(7)(A).
185
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE
Standards11
The following Standards established and adopted by NSF as minimum voluntary consensus Standards are used internationally:
Std. # Standard title
2 Food Equipment
3 Commercial Warewashing Equipment
4 Commercial Cooking, Rethermalization, and Powered Hot Food Holding and Transport Equipment
5 Water Heaters, Hot Water Supply Boilers, and Heat Recovery Equipment
6 Dispensing Freezers
7 Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers
8 Commercial Powered Food Preparation Equipment
12 Automatic Ice Making Equipment
13 Refuse Processors and Processing Systems
14 Plastics Piping System Components and Related Materials
18 Manual Food and Beverage Dispensing Equipment
20 Commercial Bulk Milk Dispensing Equipment
21 Thermoplastic Refuse Containers
NOT FOR
24 Plumbing System Components for Recreational Vehicles
25 Vending Machines for Food and Beverages
29 Detergent and Chemical Feeders for Commercial Spray-Type Dishwashing Machines
35 High Pressure Decorative Laminates for Surfacing Food Service Equipment
DISTRIBUTION
37 Air Curtains for Entranceways in Food and Food Service Establishments
40 Residential Wastewater Treatment Systems
41 Non-liquid Saturated Treatment Systems
42 Drinking Water Treatment Units – Aesthetic Effects
OR SALE
44 Residential Cation Exchange Water Softeners
46 Evaluation of Components and Devices Used in Wastewater Treatment Systems
49 Biosafety Cabinetry – Design, Construction, Performance, and Field Certification
50 Equipment and Chemicals for Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs, and Other Recreational Water Facilities
51 Food Equipment Materials
52 Supplemental Flooring
53 Drinking Water Treatment Units – Health Effects
55 Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems
58 Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment Systems
59 Mobile Food Carts
60 Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects
61 Drinking Water System Components – Health Effects
62 Drinking Water Distillation Systems
140 Sustainable Carpet Assessment
169 Special Purpose Food Equipment and Devices
170 Glossary of Food Equipment Terminology
173 Dietary Supplements
177 Shower Filtration Systems – Aesthetic Effects
11 The information contained in this Disclaimer is not part of this American National Standard (ANS) and has not been processed
in accordance with ANSI’s requirements for an ANS. Therefore, this Disclaimer may contain material that has not been subjected
to public review or a consensus process. In addition, it does not contain requirements necessary for conformance to the
Standard.
Std. # Standard title
184 Residential Dishwashers

Conformity Assessment Requirements for Certification Bodies that Certify Products Pursuant to
223
NSF/ANSI/CAN 60 Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects
244 Drinking Water Treatment Units Supplemental Microbiological Water Treatment Systems – Filtration
245 Wastewater Treatment Systems – Nitrogen Reduction
305 Personal Care Products Containing Organic Ingredients
321 Goldenseal Root (Hydrasitis canadensis)
330 Glossary of Drinking Water Treatment Unit Terminology
332 Sustainability Assessment for Resilient Floor Coverings
336 Sustainability Assessment for Commercial Furnishings Fabric
342 Sustainability Assessment for Wallcovering Products
347 Sustainability Assessment for Single-Ply Roofing Membranes
350 Onsite Residential and Commercial Water Reuse Treatment Systems
350-1 Onsite Residential and Commercial Greywater Treatment Systems for Subsurface Discharge
358-1 Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings for Water-Based Ground-Source “Geothermal” Heat Pump Systems
358-2 Polypropylene Pipe and Fittings for Water-Based Ground-Source “Geothermal” Heat Pump Systems
Cross-linked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe and Fittings for Water-based Ground-Source (Geothermal) Heat
NOT FOR
358-3
Pump Systems
Polyethylene of Raised Temperature (PE-RT) Tubing and Fittings for Water-based Ground-Source
358-4
(Geothermal) Heat Pump Systems
359 Valves for Cross-linked Polyethylene (PEX) Water Distribution Tubing Systems
360 Wastewater Treatment Systems – Field Performance Verification
DISTRIBUTION
363 Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for Pharmaceutical Excipients
372 Drinking Water Treatment System Components – Lead Content
375 Sustainability Assessment for Water Contact Products
385 Disinfection Mechanics
OR SALE
401 Drinking Water Treatment Units – Emerging Compounds / Incidental Contaminants
416 Sustainability Assessment for Water Treatment Chemical Products
418 Effluent Filters – Field Longevity Testing
419 Public Drinking Water Equipment Performance – Filtration
426 Environmental Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility Assessment of Servers
455-1 Terminology for the NSF 455 Portfolio of Standards
455-2 Good Manufacturing Practices for Dietary Supplements
455-3 Good Manufacturing Practices for Cosmetics
455-4 Good Manufacturing Practices for Over-the-Counter Drugs
456 Vaccine Storage
457 Sustainability Leadership Standard for Photovoltaic Modules and Photovoltaic Inverters
600 Health Effects Evaluation and Criteria for Chemicals in Drinking Water
14159-1 Hygiene Requirements for the Design of Meat and Poultry Processing Equipment
Hygiene Requirements for the Design of Hand-held Tools Used in Meat and Poultry Processing
14159-2
Equipment
Hygiene Requirements for the Design of Mechanical Belt Conveyors Used in Meat and Poultry
14159-3
Processing Equipment
NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
OR SALE

NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 - 2021: Health Effects Evaluation and Criteria For Chemicals in Drinking Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 - 2021: Health Effects Evaluation and Criteria For Chemicals in Drinking Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSF International Standard /

American National Standard /

NSF/ANSI/CAN 600 - 2021

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR SALE

This Standard is subject to revision.

Users of this Standard may request clarifications and

Chair, Joint Committees on Drinking Water Additives

NSF International Standard /

ICS 13.060.20; 71.100.80

Designated as an ANSI Standard

Designated as a National Standard of Canada

Recommended for adoption by

Revised August 2019 Revised June 2021

Cette Norme Nationale du Canada est disponible en versions Franҫaise et Anglaise.

Copyright 2021 NSF International

Previous editions © 2019, 2018

Printed in the United States of America.

Preference is given to the use of performance criteria measurable by examination or testing in

3 Toxicology review and evaluation procedures ....................................................................................... 6

4 Normative drinking water criteria .......................................................................................................... 41

This edition of the Standard contains the following revision:

A National Standard of Canada is a standard developed by a Standards Council of Canada (SCC)

Health Effects Evaluation and Criteria

2.5 chemical-specific adjustment factor (CSAF) approach: a method to incorporate quantitative,

3 Toxicology review and evaluation procedures

3.1 General requirements

a) A determination shall be made as to whether a published (publicly available in printed or electronic

3.2 Data requirements for published risk assessments

3.2.1 General requirements

The following shall be documented when utilizing an existing risk assessment:

— the source of the risk assessment;

3.2.2 Substances regulated by US EPA or Health Canada

3.2.3 Substances regulated by other agencies

3.2.4 Evaluation of multiple published risk assessments

— completeness and currency of the data review of each assessment;

3.3 Data requirements for new or updated risk assessments

3.3.1 General requirements

peer-reviewed (preference should be given to authoritative or regulatory bodies such as defined in

3.3.3 Data requirements for quantitative risk assessment

— the compound under evaluation is closely related to a known reproductive or developmental

3.4 Data requirements for evaluating short-term exposures

3.5 Risk estimation for published assessments

3.5.1 SPAC calculation for regulated substances

[promulgated regulatory value ( mg⁄L )]

3.5.2 SPAC calculation for other published risk assessments

[existing risk estimation ( mg⁄L )]

3.6.1 Threshold of evaluation (TOE)

3.6.1.1 TOE for chronic exposure

— static normalization conditions:

— flowing normalization conditions:

3.6.1.2 TOE for short-term exposure

3.6.2 TAC determination for qualitative risk assessment

3.6.3 TAC calculation for quantitative risk assessment

3.6.3.1 Assessment of noncarcinogenic endpoints

3.6.3.1.1 Calculation of HEDs

HED = Critical Dosea × (BWa /BWh)1/4

⎯ when toxicity is a consequence of exposure to a very reactive parent compound or

3.6.3.1.2 NOAEL or LOAEL approach

— adequate studies in humans;

— effects that are biologically relevant to humans.

[NOAELHED or LOAELHED(mg⁄kg⁄d)] [number of days dosed per week]

The calculated TAC shall be rounded to one significant figure.

UF = Total uncertainty factor (see Table 3.4)