Desal, or not Desal, That is The Question

In the water industry, developing novel technologies and solutions requires substantial R&D investments. However, many promising innovations fail to be widely adopted due to ineffective communication. This is where marketing plays a critical role. Weak communication strategy could mean market do not understand or appreciate the unique uses and advantages of the innovation, limiting its adoption. On the contrary, focused and compelling marketing that educates the market, builds demand, and aptly positions the differential attributes, is key to drive commercial success of any emerging technology. Rather than a final step, communication must be an integral part of developing innovative products from the outset.

Mineral waters, purified waters, table waters, flavored waters, high pH, or low-sodium waters… Manufacturers have been better at capitalizing on the marketability of the final product’s name rather than emphasizing the source of the water. Enhanced by marketing campaigns, models drinking water beside a mountain with the world’s bluest sky, and various enticing visuals, these persuasive narratives make us rush to the supermarket to buy these bottled waters. However, most of these products do not have the quality of water purified through multi-barrier treatments such as Desalination and Reuse through processes of ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, ozone or ultraviolet radiation, among others. This is because most are surface or well waters having gone through nothing more than a simple filtration process, potentially allowing contamination with microplastics, heavy metals, PFAS, and other contaminants of emerging concern. Let's remember that mineral water legislation is sometimes laxer than tap waters themselves, which can be provided by local utilities.

Regardless of the scientific knowledge there is about various contaminants in bottled water, typically mineral, it is a market that is growing drastically, and the media overwhelmingly supports it, with only a few questioning it. This is in stark contrast to desalination and reuse, which are widely criticized by the media. being the only sustainable solution to increase water mass production to achieve the SDGs. Communication has greatly influenced these topics, as bottled mineral water has had massive marketing investments for years, while on the other hand, non-conventional water sources have been affected by journalism that uses sensationalist headlines, exaggerated or distorted information, and emotionally charged tactics to capture the public's attention.

The first step to improve communication in our market is admitting that we have been mistaken. For more than three generations, scientists, doctors, and engineers have failed to choose the right names to describe innovative water purification processes, the words desalination and reuse not quite capturing the essence of purification, and, in some cases, even conjuring unintended negative associations, the first thing they think of is saltwater, or dirty water. Giving people the idea that the water was in their toilet just minutes before, even though water molecules are always the same, is not the best marketing campaign. But believe it or not, that's what we did; we called it 'Toilet to Tap' This shows that communication is extremely important for science.

This has perhaps been the worst of our mistakes, from our inadequate promotion of the purification level we've achieved technologically, to the names we've chosen for our two main water sources, in addition to the hydrological cycle. We became so enthusiastic about successfully purifying these water sources that we chose to name them after their source, rather than the correct term, which is Purified Water By focusing on the source rather than the final product, we unwittingly evoke instinctive responses of disgust and rejection in the minds of many, including global leaders upon whom the acceptance of new water standards and regulations depend.

From an evolutionary and neuroscientific perspective, the brain is designed to protect us from potential threats and ensure our survival, and one of the ways it does this is through our responses to the food we consume. But water is life, regardless of its origin, and only its purity matters. Paul Rozin, a social psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, studies the psychology behind the emotion of disgust, generally, but also in relation to food. His articles on the subject explain this phenomenon very well.

Regrettably, we failed to properly name not only the purification processes but also their by-products. The discard generated during the process of purifying seawater is referred to as “reject” or “brine,” instead of a more neutral name. These terms carry negative connotations, even though what's being discharged are the original minerals extracted from the sea, and with 50% less water. By focusing on “reject” or “brine,” we create a barrier for environmental groups and the public not to accept its responsible management, even when science proves desalination and reuse are sustainable practices. The media capitalize on these unattractive names to generate opposition. We need a change in language that reflects that these by-products are part of the natural water cycle and are just as natural as the evaporation process, which concentrates sea salts.

Another area where desalination often faces heavy criticism is energy consumption. News headlines frequently decry desalination as an "energy guzzler" without relativizing its energy needs. In reality, seawater desalination consumes around 3 kWh of energy per cubic meter of water produced. Comparatively, wastewater treatment averages 0.5 kWh/m3, water reuse ranges between 1-2 kWh/m3, while bottled mineral water requires a striking 35 kWh/m3 according to ANEABE. To provide a more relatable comparison, the energy required to desalinate seawater for the daily needs of a family of four is equivalent to powering an energy-efficient refrigerator, running a dryer for 38 minutes, a microwave for 72 minutes, an electric stove for 60 minutes, or boiling water in a standard kettle for 40 minutes. To put it in another perspective, a single Google search equates to around 0.12 liters of desalinated water. Meanwhile, a query on ChatGPT, based on energy consumption, translates to between 0.4 and 4 liters of desalinated water. Despite having lower or comparable energy needs, desalination takes the brunt of attacks over its energy use.

What we need is a paradigm shift: a move away from describing where the water comes from and a focus on the result of the purification process. The time has come to rethink our terminology and use language that refers to purified water, purification processes, or multi-barriers, terms that are aptly used by the pharmaceutical industry and some beverage companies.

By 2050, the global population is projected to reach 10 billion inhabitants. With this exponential growth, the demand for water will also increase substantially. According to some projections, we will need at least 25% more water than we consume today to meet the needs of such a population. In a world with limited resources and growing environmental challenges, people cannot afford to continue doubting facts and science. It is imperative that we all embrace and trust the scientific and technological solutions at our disposal. As representatives of the water purification market, we have a responsibility not only to provide these solutions but also to lead the education and awareness process. We must recognize the importance of improving our communication so that the public understands and accepts the significance and efficacy of water purification processes. ?We have done great work over the past 50 years, and this article is by no means a critique, but rather a reflection, as today we have much more knowledge from communication sciences like neuroscience. Continuing to communicate within our community in the same way is not an issue, we should just use words like purification, purified water, multiple barriers, and above all, my favorite - purity - more often. Only then can we ensure sustainable access to clean water for everyone, now and in the future.

"We should classify water by its purity, not but its source"