Berkey Phoenix PFAS, Radiological and Petroleum Test Results
Three contaminant families that rarely get tested together in consumer filters: the initial PFAS panel, radiological elements, and petroleum products. All three come from the September 2025 multi-category screening, with the sustained PFAS work reported separately in October 2025.
Lab: RAYNU Analytical and Research Lab LLP, Bangalore, ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited. Reports 2510041A (initial multi-category, 2-27 September 2025) and 2511001 (sustained PFOA/PFOS, 1 October 2025). Product PGF9-2.
Five PFAS compounds were each challenged at 10 µg/L, which is 10,000 parts per trillion, or 2,500 times the federal limit of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS. PFOA and PFOS were handled separately in the sustained study below, making seven compounds in total.
| PFAS Compound | Input Concentration (µg/L) | Output Concentration (µg/L) | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| PFNA (Perfluorononanoic acid) | 10 | < 0.02 | 99.8%+ |
| PFHxS (Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid) | 10 | < 0.02 | 99.8%+ |
| PFHpA (Perfluoroheptanoic acid) | 10 | < 0.02 | 99.8%+ |
| PFBS (Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid) | 10 | < 0.02 | 99.8%+ |
| PFDA (Perfluorodecanoic acid) | 10 | < 0.02 | 99.8%+ |
PFOA and PFOS through 1,500 liters. Combined influent of 1.5 µg/L, sampled at five points from baseline to the full test volume. The laboratory pass threshold was 0.02 µg/L combined.
| Liters Tested | Contaminant | Influent (µg/L) | Effluent (µg/L) | Lab Pass Threshold (µg/L) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | PFOA + PFOS | 1.5 | < 0.005 | 0.02 (combined) | Passed |
| 250 | PFOA + PFOS | 1.5 | < 0.005 | 0.02 (combined) | Passed |
| 500 | PFOA + PFOS | 1.5 | < 0.005 | 0.02 (combined) | Passed |
| 1000 | PFOA + PFOS | 1.5 | < 0.005 | 0.02 (combined) | Passed |
| 1500 | PFOA + PFOS | 1.5 | < 0.005 | 0.02 (combined) | Passed |
| Heavy Metal | Input Concentration (µg/L) | Output Concentration (µg/L) | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chromium (Cr) | 200 | < 1 | 99.5%+ |
| Cobalt (Co) | 200 | < 1 | 99.5%+ |
| Molybdenum (Mo) | 200 | < 1 | 99.5%+ |
| Vanadium (V) | 200 | < 1 | 99.5%+ |
| Uranium (U) | 200 | < 1 | 99.5%+ |
| VOC Compound | Input Concentration | Output Concentration | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,1-dichloro-2-propane | 1000 µg/L | < 1 µg/L | 99.9%+ |
| 1,1,1-trichloro-2-propane | 1000 µg/L | < 1 µg/L | 99.9%+ |
| 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene | 1000 µg/L | < 1 µg/L | 99.9%+ |
| Chloroform | 1000 µg/L | < 1 µg/L | 99.9%+ |
| Methylcyclohexane-methane | 2 mg/L | < 0.01 mg/L | 99.5%+ |
| Disinfectant | Input Concentration (mg/L) | Output Concentration (mg/L) | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorine Residual | 2 | < 0.01 | 99.5%+ |
| Contaminant | Input Concentration | Output Concentration | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chloramines | 3.02 mg/L | < 0.1 mg/L | 99.9%+ |
| Free Chlorine | 2.0 mg/L | < 0.1 mg/L | 99.9%+ |
| Chloride | 236 mg/L | 10 mg/L | 98.2%+ |
| Nitrates | 42 µg/L | 0.3 µg/L | 99.0% |
| Nitrites | 3.8 µg/L | < 0.1 µg/L | 99.9%+ |
| Fluoride | 8000 µg/L | 1960 µg/L | 75.5% |
| Disinfection Byproduct | Input Concentration (mg/L) | Output Concentration (mg/L) | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bromochloroacetonitrile | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Chloropicrin | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Dibromoacetonitrile | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Dichloroacetonitrile | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Haloacetonitrile | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Haloketones | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Tribromoacetic acid | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Trichloroacetonitrile | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Trihalomethanes | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Radiological Element | Input Concentration (µg/L) | Output Concentration (µg/L) | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cesium (Cs) | 1000 | < 1 | 99.9%+ |
| Iodine (I) | 1000 | < 1 | 99.9%+ |
| Strontium (Sr) | 1000 | < 1 | 99.9%+ |
| Thorium (Th) | 1000 | < 1 | 99.9%+ |
| Uranium (U) | 200 | < 1 | 99.5%+ |
| Petroleum Contaminant | Input Concentration (mg/L) | Output Concentration (mg/L) | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oil and Grease | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Mineral Spirits | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Gasoline | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Diesel | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Kerosene | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
| Crude Oil | 10 | < 0.1 | 99.0%+ |
Is any of this an NSF certification?
No. These results come from independent accredited laboratories: RAYNU Analytical reports 2510041A and 2511001, plus Atom Testing Laboratory in April 2026. The Phoenix element is certified to NSF/ANSI 42 for chlorine, taste and odor and NSF/ANSI/CAN 372 for lead-free materials. Neither standard addresses PFAS, radiologicals or petroleum, so those results are testing, not certification.
How severe were the PFAS challenge levels?
Five compounds were each dosed at 10 µg/L, which is 10,000 parts per trillion and about 2,500 times the 4 ppt federal limit for PFOA and PFOS. PFOA and PFOS themselves were run at 0.5 and 1.0 µg/L, or roughly 125 and 250 times that limit, through 1,500 liters of water. These are deliberately punishing concentrations compared with normal drinking water.
Why do the results say "99.8%+" and "below 0.02" instead of exact numbers?
Because the compound was no longer detectable down to the reporting limit, and a percentage cannot be computed past that point. Quoting the limit and the ceiling is the accurate way to report it. Anyone publishing a precise figure like 99.97% on a non-detect result is inventing precision the instrument did not provide.
Fluoride came out at 75.5%. Why not higher?
Because the carbon core is not a dedicated fluoride medium. The report shows 8,000 µg/L entering and 1,960 µg/L remaining, which is a real reduction but not removal, and that capacity fades as the element loads. Sustained fluoride reduction is what the separate PF-2 element is for. We do not describe the core element as a fluoride filter.
Do the radiological results mean this is safe for radioactive water?
No. Those rows describe a bench test with spiked stable elements such as cesium, strontium and uranium salts, not a radiation safety device and not a licence to treat contaminated water. If you suspect radioactive contamination, that is an emergency and an official matter for your water authority, not a countertop filter.
Can it handle gasoline or oil contamination, like a spill in a well?
The petroleum rows show reduction of spiked fuel compounds under test conditions; that is a capability at bench scale, not spill remediation. A well contaminated by fuel needs the source addressed, professional assessment and repeated laboratory testing before anyone drinks from it. A filter does not fix a contaminated well.