By Jack Kiyonaga | Alexandria Journalism Project
More than 14,000 different types of potentially hazardous chemicals known as PFAS have been used in an array of products like nonstick pans, firefighting foam, cosmetics, food packaging and more since the 1940s. They now exist in the water, soil, air and just about anywhere else you could think to look.
And, according to recent private testing, PFAS exist in the drinking water of public buildings and private homes throughout Alexandria.
This matters because ingestion of some types of PFAS has been linked to increased risk of several cancers; problems with fertility, maternal health and low birth weight of babies; and higher cholesterol. The National Institutes of Health has also found a link between PFAS levels and greater risk of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.
In August, the Alexandria Journalism Project followed along as PFAS testing was conducted on drinking water at various sites in Alexandria. The goal was simple – to give Alexandrians a clearer sense of what is coming out of the faucet. Over two days, 12 tests were completed at six locations, including private homes, a recreation center and two public libraries.
Ultimately, PFAS were found in the drinking water at every location except the Ellen Coolidge Burke Branch Library. These findings directly contradict the most recent data from Virginia American Water, Alexandria’s water utility, which showed almost nonexistent PFAS levels.
The testing demonstrated that there is a consistent PFAS signal coming from the drinking water in Alexandria. At every location except the Burke library, multiple PFAS compounds were present. A ranking of the tested locations from most-total-PFAS to least-total- PFAS is as follows: Old Town, Chinquapin Park Recreation Center, Barrett Library, North Ridge, West End and then the Burke library.
The data showed PFAS levels ranging from 25 parts per trillion in total PFAS present at the Old Town home to 11.5 ppt at the West End home. Those findings are in line with more limited testing the Times reported on in 2025, which showed Alexandria water had PFAS levels of 17 to 22 ppt of total PFAS present, while neighboring jurisdictions had levels in the single digits.
Still, none of the testing showed PFAS levels higher than limits proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that are set to take effect in 2029.
Local environmentalist Bill Gillespie, who helped conduct the testing, said the results provide a “snapshot” of the water in Alexandria.
“Overall, fairly low levels of PFAS were found,” Gillespie said. “That’s the good news.”
The tests raise questions, though, about the public data released by Virginia American Water in its 2025 Water Quality Report. That report includes data from 2024, the last time Virginia American Water was required to do PFAS testing, and states that Alexandria’s drinking water had almost 0 PFAS present.
Further facts raised in the Alexandria Journalism Project’s ongoing investigation into PFAS in Alexandria’s drinking water, beyond this recent private testing, have indicated that PFAS are indeed present in Alexandria’s drinking water. The Griffith Treatment Plant, which supplies about 60% of Alexandria’s drinking water, continues to have elevated PFAS levels.
The EPA’s reporting of unregulated PFAS chemicals in February found that compounds such as PFBS, PFHxA and PFPeA were in Alexandria’s drinking water. Additionally, AlexRenew, Alexandria’s wastewater utility, has shown that the incoming wastewater also has PFAS in it.
For this piece of the investigation, private testing was led by Hera Lu-Yang, a chemistry and math student at the University of Toronto who has been testing for PFAS in the Alexandria region for the last two years, along with environmentalists Gillespie and Russ Bailey.* 
The Alexandria Journalism Project spoke with representatives and scientists from Fairfax Water, Virginia American Water and the Virginia Department of Health along with everyday Alexandria residents who have been desperate for a straightforward answer to the question: Are there PFAS in Alexandria’s drinking water?
The testing
Testing began at a home in Old Town and zigzagged across Alexandria. Over two days, the testing team of Gillespie, Bailey and Lu-Yang saw the full array of life in Alexandria, from colonial glamour to wild gardens, from swim lessons at the Chinquapin Park Recreation Center to the children’s reading hour at the library.
Home testing “really isn’t that complicated” Lu-Yang said as she slipped on sterile gloves provided by the testing company, Cyclopure, to begin the first test in Old Town. Cyclopure offers high quality at-home testing for PFAS with kits developed with funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The kits were relatively affordable, at $85 per test, and Cyclopure returned results in less than two weeks.
For each test, Lu-Yang let the water run for two minutes to flush out anything that might have accumulated in the pipes. Then, she filled the collection cup up with 200mL of cold water. Over about 20 minutes, the water slowly dripped through a glass microfiber filter and DEXSORB absorbent disc, where any PFAS compounds present would be captured. The test kit was then sealed back into the box, and mailed to the Cyclopure lab.
After testing a filtered and unfiltered sink in Old Town, the team replicated the test at residential houses in the North Ridge neighborhood and a home in Alexandria’s West End.
The team also went to three public locations: the Chinquapin Park Recreation Center, where the test was completed at a bathroom faucet, and the Burke and Kate Waller Barrett branches of the Alexandria public library. Both library tests were done at drinking water fountains.
The next day, the same testing was repeated, except for the house in Old Town, so that each location had two total tests completed. The team collected 12 total samples of drinking water from across Alexandria during the two days. The Old Town home served as an additional point of comparison for filtered vs. nonfiltered water in the same house on the same day. Likewise, the library tests compared two filtered water fountains over two days.
The results
While PFAS were found in more than 80% of the tests conducted, the elevated PFAS numbers at two of the three community focal points was especially notable for Lu-Yang.
“What’s concerning is that the public places, like Chinquapin Park Recreation Center, were pretty high,” she explained. Still, the overall results were not much of a shock for Lu-Yang.
“Honestly, I’m not too surprised,” she said.
Lu-Yang has been testing for PFAS across localities in Virginia for the last two years. In April and July of 2025, she ran two PFAS tests on drinking water in Alexandria. In the first one, PFAS chemicals called PFOA and PFOS were recorded at 2.4 ppt and 3.1 ppt, respectively. In the second test, PFOA was found at 2.5 ppt and PFOS was found at 3.5 ppt. For reference, the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for PFOA and PFOS is 4 ppt.
Again, in March, Lu-Yang tested Alexandria’s drinking water and found PFOA at 2.5 ppt and PFOS at 1.7 ppt. So, these most recent PFAS results were not only consistent across the testing, they also align with results that Lu-Yang recorded in 2025 and earlier this year for Alexandria’s drinking water.
Gillespie, former chief of compliance and enforcement for the Washington, D.C., air quality division, explained that the at-home testing is a good data point to consider, but shouldn’t be taken for more than it is.
As always, he explained, more testing and more information would make for a stronger argument. Gillespie also explained that just because different tests find different levels of PFAS doesn’t mean that anything is amiss.
“It’s completely reasonable that people get different numbers because [PFAS] is measured in such small concentrations,” he said. “It’s such a delicate measurement.”
For reference, PFAS is measured in parts per trillion, and one part equates to finding a single drop in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools, according to an analogy used by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
Additionally, Gillespie pointed to other variables that can affect testing like water flow, weather and testing methodology. Even still, Gillespie said he thought the private testing was a worthwhile endeavor.
“It was good to do it,” he said.
Overall, this private testing gives residents one more data point to add to the bigger picture when it comes to understanding what kinds of chemicals are coming out of the faucet. But ultimately, PFAS in the drinking water is a question for utility companies to answer. So, are drinking water utility companies adequately addressing residents’ concerns when it comes to PFAS?
‘Definitely a top priority’
Susan Miller, public affairs officer at Fairfax Water, explained that PFAS is “definitely a top priority for Fairfax right now.” While Virginia American Water distributes Alexandria’s water, the water is supplied by Fairfax Water.
To address the issue, Fairfax Water is embarking on a project at the Griffith Treatment Plant to treat PFAS contaminated water coming in from the Occoquan Reservoir. After studying the best treatment strategy through a pilot plant project last year, Fairfax Water will be implementing a new chemical feed system for powdered activated carbon at the Griffith plant.
Powdered activated carbon binds with specific contaminants in the water, Chris Moody, Fairfax Water’s chief of water supply and treatment programs, explained.
Powered activated carbon is a further processed version of granulated activated carbon with more surface area, which is useful for treating PFAS, Moody said. Powdered activated carbon is already used sometimes in Fairfax Water’s treatment process to address odor or taste concerns, but the PFAS treatment will be a much larger project.
Fairfax Water will be constructing a brand new powdered activated carbon injection system at the Griffith Plant, with the hope that it will be online in the next 16 months. The large project is in the initial construction stages. Fairfax Water’s estimated treatment cost for PFAS over the next six years at the Griffith Plant is $389 million, with $24 million annually in operational and maintenance costs.
“It takes a lot of things to get a really big project moving,” Moody explained. But, Moody is confident that Fairfax Water will be ready by the original EPA-mandated compliance date for PFAS of 2029.
And while these treatment projects are massively expensive, Miller explained that Fairfax Water is pursuing a “polluters pay” strategy. In 2025, Fairfax Water filed a lawsuit against chemical manufacturers of AFFF firefighting foam, which is a serious PFAS contaminant.
“Our customers shouldn’t be paying for this treatment,” Miller said. And as of right now, there have been no rate increases for customers to pay for PFAS treatment, according to Miller.
Beyond treatment, Fairfax Water has been working with legislators and scientists to address source water pollution. HB 2050, passed in 2025, is holding industrial polluters of the Occoquan Reservoir accountable for the PFAS they produce. Now, any company that discharges into the reservoir’s watershed has to test their discharge for PFAS and report findings to the Virginia Department of Environ-mental Quality.
“That’s going to be a great deal of help going forward to protect our watershed,” Miller said.
Likewise, Fairfax Water has been working with the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Lab at Virginia Tech to identify how PFAS is making its way into the reservoir.
“The thing with PFAS is that PFAS [are] everywhere,” Miller said. Still, researchers are trying to figure out best practices for limiting the spread of PFAS.
“Household exposure is a significant exposure route,” Moody explained. Anything from food containers to cosmetics to cleaning agents to fireproofing can introduce PFAS into the larger environment.
Because of the ubiquitous nature of household PFAS, Moody has concerns about the accuracy of home testing.
“When you’re talking about these really low levels, the risk of environmental contamination that you don’t realize is there becomes really high,” he said. “So, I think something that people need to be aware of before they do these home test kits is to try and do the research, try to better understand the methodology and the restrictions you need to use when you’re collecting the sample.”
Moody’s concerns point toward the difficulty of trying to test for PFAS. Testing results for PFAS are often unpredictable because of the bizarre nature of the chemical compounds themselves.
A tale of two filters
So, while the at-home testing results were consistent across the two days of testing and lined up with results over the past two years from Lu-Yang, there were some odd revelations from the tests regarding filters.
At the home in Old Town, the kitchen sink with a filter actually tested slightly higher in PFAS than the unfiltered bathroom sink.
How is this possible?
The answer could lie in the type of filter for the kitchen sink. The filter was a popular model from General Electric. While this model treats contaminants like lead, it doesn’t actually treat PFAS. So, in this case at least, the water from the filter actually had a very small amount more PFAS, 4.4 total ppt, than the unfiltered water.
One other aspect of the testing that stands out is the Burke library result. The Burke library tested at 0 PFAS on both days. The Burke library uses an ELKAY Water Cooler Filter, Model EWF172, at their drinking fountain. Even stranger, this filter does not have any special PFAS mitigating properties.
Likewise, the Barrett branch of the Alexandria library has the same filter and tested positive on both days for PFAS. So, the Burke library tested at 0 for both days and the Barrett library tested very consistently as well at 20.4 and 19.9 ppt for total PFAS.
Variability like this in PFAS testing results may also explain why Virginia American Water has published reports showing very different levels of PFAS in Alexandria’s water than this recent at-home testing.
Bailey Davis, chief of field operations for the office of drinking water for the Virginia Department of Health, explained that testing results can be highly sensitive due to a range of variables. So while Virginia American Water’s reported PFAS levels may look odd when compared to other data points, Davis is still “confident that they’re reporting accurately.”
This discrepancy could be resolved as new PFAS testing rules go into effect in 2027, Davis explained. Starting in 2027, water utilities will have to regularly report PFAS findings to consumers. For Davis, this increase in reporting could help to smooth out differences in testing.
A lot of factors are at play when it comes to detecting these tiny, nearly indestructible chains of carbon and fluorine. Kirin Furst, co-director of the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Lab at Virginia Tech, explained in an earlier interview with the Alexandria Journalism Project that “PFAS are just not normal.”
That’s why treating PFAS in the home through filters can be difficult. PFAS filters are very sensitive and must be carefully maintained, according to the EPA’s website.
The effectiveness of filters, and which filters to buy, has been on Alexandrians’ minds as well.
“We take it for granted that we have clean air and clean water,”Alexandria resident Jeanne Snapp said. “One of the questions I have is should we all have filters?”
The best filters for PFAS, according to the EPA, are granular activated carbon, ion-exchange resin and reverse osmosis. Customers can look for products with an NSF/ANSI 53 or NSF/ ANSI 58 certification.
However, the EPA website cautions that “filters are only effective if they are maintained according to the manufacturer’s instructions for how long their filters or membranes will last before they need to be replaced.”
Citizen leadership
While PFAS may be a complex national issue, the actions of everyday citizens can still have a big effect, especially as federal regulations continue to evolve.
When the EPA first announced in 2024 that they would be establishing legally enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water, they originally included five compounds on that list: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA and Gen-X.
However in May, the EPA proposed a new direction whereby PFOA and PFOS would still be legally restricted, but PFHxS, PFNA and Gen-X would no longer be restricted. Likewise, the new proposal from the EPA would give drinking water utilities an additional two years, until 2031, to meet these guidelines.
This proposed move away from more federal oversight has worried some residents.
“In the interest of convenience, we’ve poisoned ourselves,” Alexandria resident Tom Dabney lamented. “I’m very concerned. How could you not be?”
Bailey, who was recognized earlier this year for his decades of environmental stewardship with the Ellen Pickering Environmental Excellence Award, said more residents need to be speaking out about this issue to get legislators to pay attention.
When citizens voice their opinions, “we get a good result,” Bailey said.
Alexandria residents who wish to learn more about the PFAS entering their homes, can order a test kit from Cyclopure, test their tap water and let the Alexandria Journalism Project know the results. We will include the results of resident testing in a future installment of this series.
*Russ Bailey is a member of the Alexandria Community Media board of directors. ACM is the 501(c)(3) entity that owns the Alexandria Times.
The post Home testing ‘snapshot’ captures PFAS in Alexandria appeared first on Alexandria Times.
