The Federal Water Council (COHIFe), at a meeting held in Mendoza with representatives of 14 provinces and the national state, confirmed that the arsenic map on the presence of the element in drinking water, published by the Technological Institute of Buenos Aires (ITBA), “lacks the necessary technical, scientific, methodological and documentary conditions to be considered a valid tool.”
The report was signed by the states of Santa Fe, Entre Ríos, Buenos Aires, La Pampa, San Juan, La Rioja, Corrientes, Chaco, Mendoza, Chubut, Misiones, Salta, Formosa, and Córdoba, and the national state, which makes up COHIFe.
The COHIFe document focuses its criticism on the lack of scientific rigor and traceability of the data used by the ITBA. It is stated that “the information sent by ITBA lacks verifiable traceability” because the samples were voluntarily provided by third parties.
Among the serious methodological deficiencies pointed out, the Federal Water Board highlighted the absence of: a chain of custody register, data on precise coordinates and depths, in situ controls or conservation conditions and analytical quality controls (such as replicates, blanks or approved standards).
COHIFe stressed that this methodology contradicts what has been approved by international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), IRAM, and others. Furthermore, ITBA’s own admission has been criticized for “not having carried out any field verification or validation of wells” or contradicting official regional and national rules, preventing “certification of the validity and representativeness of the points made”.
He also criticized the “lightness” with which the study addressed “the subject of severe public and health sensitivity.” It is warned that disseminating high-impact information without strict adherence to protocols could “lead to erroneous conclusions among the population and affect confidence in drinking water supply systems.”
The main point is the confusion that the map generates between water sources. COHIFe confirms that the study provides groundwater samples that do not match the drinking water that residents actually consume in localities that currently obtain water within legal limits. This incorrect association leads to “misinterpretations with potential health and social impact.”
COHIFe also highlights that ITBA recognized the map as part of a “university extension project and degree thesis,” without peer review or the technical scope needed for regional descriptions, limiting its validity as a “conclusive tool.”