# Whole house water filters



## Rob711 (Dec 10, 2019)

So it’s coming out that this nice Long Island i live on has some water quality issues, not a huge deal because our taxes and living expenses are so low, NOT! It’s in other parts of country but we seem to have higher than national levels of dioxane 1,4. Also psoa? Seems the dioxane, I may be spelling these all wrong, is not really filterable by homeowners. I read somewhere that reverse osmosis May take away 50%. 
  So anybody have one, looking quick seems like majority are point of use via a tap at the sink, I wouldn’t wanna pay to wash the cars or water the lawn with filtered water anyway. Opens question about watering the veggie garden.  Thoughts?


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 10, 2019)

My guess is Dioxin and PFOA or PFA.  Dioxin is a potentially nasty actor, you may have heard of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. PFOA/PFAs  are a newer one. it was used in firefighting foams and is popping up near airports as well as near factories that do teflon coating. It is highly transportable in ground water. There is a lot of debate on the safe level with lawyers shooting for ultra low numbers to make it easy to sue. NH just passed some low levels for public water systems but it was thrown out of court due to lack of evidence for the lower numvers. In some ways its the new "asbestos" and it going to make a lot of lawyers rich.

Unless there is hazardous waste site nearby dioxins usually are airborne they are not soluble so the soil should filter it out and dont usually get into water supplies. PFOAs apparently are the opposite. In either case if your water is above the action level you need a custom solution for your specific water source. My suspicion is you will probably treat drinking water with RO or special ion exchange and use a different method for showers and sinks and no treatment for non potable like hoses and toilets.

Be aware some high pressure water treatment salesmen use nasty chemicals like these to sell expensive systems. They usually say something to the effect that your water may have a long list of nasties to get their foot in the door. Dioxins can be measured down to the parts per qunitrillion range although the actual level where is harmful is unknown. Vietnam vets and Vietnamese were basically getting soaked with liquid containing 50 parts per million and eating crops from soil drenched with it. BTW the biggest source of Dioxins in most areas are trash burners, another source is burning wood so if you are a wood burner you are producing minute amounts of dioxins. A far bigger source is backyard trash burners.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 11, 2019)

Before considering filtration have your water tested by a water lab that does not sell treatment equipment. 

Sounds like a scare tactic.


----------



## ispinwool (Dec 11, 2019)

As much as I agree with @Highbeam , if you can't drink it, you just can't drink it.  I grew up on a farm with spring
water that was clean and tasted great.  Then I moved into a little town with chlorinated water and couldn't
get it past my nose.  It was treated and fell within the parameters of 'clean water' but it was nasty. I bought a 
little counter-top steam distiller to see if it helped. The difference was amazing! No metallic taste and no odor.
Then we moved again (and added a few more kids) and we bought a 3 gallon capacity distiller that's plumbed into our water pipes.  It's in the basement because it's fan is  little noisy and it cranks out a bit of heat, but we have drinkable water.  If you'd like to
see what is remaining in the 'cook pot' after distillation, I can post a pic....

p.s.--it's not plumbed into the taps...it fills, distills then shuts off when the 3 gallon reservoir is full.  We bring it up to
the kitchen via jugs (which might be an issue for some folks but we are in the basement constantly anyway).


----------



## semipro (Dec 14, 2019)

Your water authority, the folks supplying your water, should be able to recommend treatment options.  Activated carbon filters will generally remove organic compounds pretty well.  Activated carbon filters are relatively inexpensive and all water passes through them for consumption.  Reverse osmosis is more expensive and a considerable amount of water is "wasted" to make the filtered stuff.  You probably only want to use RO water for consumption.  Most RO systems are not the whole house type.  Our filtration system uses particulate then activated carbon then RO.  All water is treated except that going to the outdoor faucets.  RO water is used only for the ice maker, the coffee pot and a tap at our kitchen sink drinking and cooking.


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 17, 2019)

I have the great honor of living in the neighborhood currently holding the United States record for the highest (so far) recorded level of PFOA/PFOS in a residential drinking water well.  And we're just a few miles away from the highest ever recorded ground water result (not from a drinking water well).

Our journey to clean water started 2+ years ago.  It's been highly educational if nothing else.

Our neighborhood currently has been provided with between 1,000lbs and 2,000lbs of activated carbon (per home) with pre/post sediment filters and a UV lamp "back".  The GAC effectively removes nearly 100% of PFOA/PFOS and most other nasty items.  It will also remove Dioxin.  It will not, however, remove some/most heavy metals such as lead.

Many of us run RO at our kitchen sinks as well.  RO is not a feasible filtering method for full-house but it's great for point of use.  RO gets nearly everything out of your water but it's slow, creates huge amounts of waste water and ultimately creates a heavily contaminated holding cell for the bad stuff (the membrane).  Worth noting is that RO is not a healthy replacement for drinking water (exclusively) unless you add additional steps to put minerals back in the water.  Bottled water is a better option than RO if that's all you'll be drinking.

Here's a picture of what $7,000 will get you (in Michigan).  I'm tested every 12 weeks and for two+ years we've been non-detect for most everything both in the middle of the tanks as well as after both tanks.  I run on a 4 tank, 1,000lbs system.  My neighbors with the "really" high levels, above 10,000ppt, have 8 tanks, 2,000lbs of GAC.


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 17, 2019)

semipro said:


> Your water authority, the folks supplying your water, should be able to recommend treatment options.  Activated carbon filters will generally remove organic compounds pretty well.  Activated carbon filters are relatively inexpensive and all water passes through them for consumption.  Reverse osmosis is more expensive and a considerable amount of water is "wasted" to make the filtered stuff.  You probably only want to use RO water for consumption.  Most RO systems are not the whole house type.  Our filtration system uses particulate then activated carbon then RO.  All water is treated except that going to the outdoor faucets.  RO water is used only for the ice maker, the coffee pot and a tap at our kitchen sink drinking and cooking.



A water authority suggesting treatment options to homeowners on their system would be akin to them acknowledging a deficiency in their own filtering.  Good luck getting that in writing!


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 17, 2019)

The claim in NH was that the state didnt test for PFOA/PFAs as the EPA set no limits on them. The manufacturers reportedly knew it was a potential issue long ago.  GAC will take out a lot of nasties but hope that someone is paying the increased power bills, testing and replacement GAC.  I think a similar treatment approach was used down at the old Pease air force base in Portsmouth NH as its water system was contaminated. In other areas they just extended the public water supply to home with wells.


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 18, 2019)

I guess I didn't really help with the OP's question.

So this little bugger on your sink will make your drinking/cooking water wicked safe.  You can find units that add "more stages" to add minerals back in if this is the only drinking water you'll ever use.  I use the one below, as linked, without the mineral stage since we primarily use bottled water for drinking.

Amazon product

Your mileage may vary but if you care about the NSF rating you'll likely need to spend a bit more for that rating.  My research leads me to believe that there are only a couple manufacturers in the world that make the membranes for these units, they are all functionally nearly identical and those companies that go for the NSF ratings are doing it for the marketing...mostly.

You can also buy a kit to make the above filter easily connect to your fridge ice maker.


----------



## Rob711 (Dec 18, 2019)

Thanks!  And I thought there was a lot of info about what stove to buy!  Water filtration, sheesh


----------



## semipro (Dec 18, 2019)

Rob711 said:


> Opens question about watering the veggie garden. Thoughts?


Some plants are actually quite good at removing some contaminants from soil and water.  They can even be used to remove contamination in a process called phytoremediation.  So I'd be careful with what soil and water you grow your veggies in.  It may be best to collect rainwater and use it but there are no guarantees that rain is uncontaminated either.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 18, 2019)

I'm no chemist, but dioxin and dioxane are two distinct chemicals:








						1,4-Dioxane - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Apparently, RO filtration does not remove dioxane effectively:








						Reverse osmosis followed by activated carbon filtration for efficient removal of organic micropollutants from river bank filtrate - PubMed
					

Drinking water utilities in Europe are faced with a growing presence of organic micropollutants in their water sources. The aim of this research was to assess the robustness of a drinking water treatment plant equipped with reverse osmosis and subsequent activated carbon filtration for the...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




It looks as if some types of GAC are fairly effective, although I believe the spent carbon is a disposal issue:








						Abiotic and bioaugmented granular activated carbon for the treatment of 1,4-dioxane-contaminated water
					

1,4-Dioxane is a probable human carcinogen and an emerging contaminant that has been detected in surface water and groundwater resources. Many convent…




					www.sciencedirect.com
				






semipro said:


> Some plants are actually quite good at removing some contaminants from soil and water.  They can even be used to remove contamination in a process called phytoremediation.  So I'd be careful with what soil and water you grow your veggies in.  It may be best to collect rainwater and use it but there are no guarantees that rain is uncontaminated either.



Yes, it looks like dioxane uptake by plants is considerable:








						Phytoremediation: modeling plant uptake and contaminant transport in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum
					

Phytoremediation is an emerging technology that uses plants and their associated rhizospheric microorganisms to remove, degrade, detoxify, or contain …




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 18, 2019)

Socratic Monologue said:


> I'm no chemist, but dioxin and dioxane are two distinct chemicals:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



FWIW I would take wiki articles with a grain of salt.  Many of these compounds are not yet regulated and not particularly well known.  If you search the NSF database you'll find recommended filter media for Dioxins.  Dioxins are a family, you won't find "dioxin" listed on a chemical list for filter effectiveness, *Tetrachlorodibenzo-p*  is the most common bad guy out there from the Dioxin family.

Almost all RO filters you'll buy, including the one linked above, will have one or more stages of GAC included in the filter.  The most important aspect of GAC is "dwell time" when it comes to many of these chemicals.  It's why I have 1,000lbs of GAC in my basement.  It's also why RO filters, in this application, are intentionally slow to recover.

And I have no idea what Dioxane is


----------



## semipro (Dec 18, 2019)

Rob711 said:


> Water filtration, sheesh


More like "Pollution, sheesh"
We're now dealing with pollution in our environment that is much insidious than the smog, and burning rivers of the 60s.  That's what makes it so damn scary. 
PFOS contamination resulted from use of firefighting foams and such. 
We put MTBE in gasoline to make it burn cleaner but polluted the groundwater by way of leaking underground storage tanks.
The drugs we're putting into our sewer systems by way of our bodies aren't removed in standard sewage treatment plants that dump to our rivers, and more importantly, the drinking water treatment plants that take water from those same rivers. I'm referring to contaminants like endocrine disrupters that cause problems at the genetic level. 
And sodium from winter deicing salts is starting to show up in surface and ground water supplies in amounts that humans can taste and are know to cause health issues.  Its also not removed by standard drinking water treatment methods.
Fracking, -- the impacts on groundwater supplies have yet to be fully revealed but I'd bet we're going to regret doing that one day.

Sorry for the rant but it kills me to see us crapping in our own den, so to speak.  Technology is great but I'd rather not be dependent upon it for clean drinking water, air, and edible garden veggies.

To get this reply back inline with your original questions:  we've talked about treating drinking water here but you may want to consider also the exposure to your skin and respiratory system that occurs while bathing, including showers.  Chemicals in you water may volatilize or aerosolize in the shower and enter your lungs or simply be absorbed through your skin.


----------



## Rob711 (Dec 18, 2019)

So I’m going to go back to smoking cigarettes. And nothing but beer and vodka to drink!


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 18, 2019)

semipro said:


> More like "Pollution, sheesh"
> We're now dealing with pollution in our environment that is much insidious than the smog, and burning rivers of the 60s.  That's what makes it so damn scary.
> PFOS contamination resulted from use of firefighting foams and such.
> We put MTBE in gasoline to make it burn cleaner but polluted the groundwater by way of leaking underground storage tanks.
> ...



Oiy.  As a member of a community that has gone through the entire change curve around this topic I would encourage everyone not to over react if/when they become impacted.  There was a very interesting study released not long after the "Love Canal" incident many decades ago that showed in some cases the stress created by the media and the "wondering" was in many cases more damaging to the potentially impacted residents than the actual chemicals in their water and around their homes.

We freaked out about showering initially too.  If you're not dying within a month of directly drinking the water, you'll likely never die via inhalation in the shower or a good soak in your hot tub....this is where we've ended up 

Get an under sink filter setup so you can sleep better at night...and definitely drink more beer, less water.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Dec 18, 2019)

stee6043 said:


> FWIW I would take wiki articles with a grain of salt.  Many of these compounds are not yet regulated and not particularly well known.  If you search the NSF database you'll find recommended filter media for Dioxins.  Dioxins are a family, you won't find "dioxin" listed on a chemical list for filter effectiveness, *Tetrachlorodibenzo-p*  is the most common bad guy out there from the Dioxin family.
> 
> Almost all RO filters you'll buy, including the one linked above, will have one or more stages of GAC included in the filter.  The most important aspect of GAC is "dwell time" when it comes to many of these chemicals.  It's why I have 1,000lbs of GAC in my basement.  It's also why RO filters, in this application, are intentionally slow to recover.
> 
> And I have no idea what Dioxane is


I only cited the wiki page to point out that the OP is talking about dioxane, and much of the ensuing discussion switched to dioxin.   If a person doubted any of the wiki entry, they could confirm it using the source citations, of which there are at least one for every substantive claim made.  Maybe this comparison is more clear:








						Dioxane
					

Dioxane | C4H8O2 | CID 31275 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.




					pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				











						2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin
					

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin | C12H4Cl4O2 | CID 15625 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.




					pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



They are clearly quite different molecules, regardless of the similarity in names.   If what the OP is dealing with is dioxane, nothing about dioxin is going to be relevant.

Dioxane is apparently pretty well understood, but yes, largely unregulated:


			https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrro_factsheet_contaminant_14-dioxane_january2014_final.pdf


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 18, 2019)

BTW if you have radon in your water supply, the granulated activated carbon removes it and then at some point become radioactive waste. Radon is entirely natural as well as arsenic which is problem in some areas. Its not just man made stuff. 

The reality is the ability to measure these contaminants means we know they are in the water but for most contaminants there are permissible exposure limits (PEL)  set by the EPA. The PEL for a contaminant is usually orders of magnitude higher than the ability to accurately measure  a contaminant. 

The environmental director at the mill I worked for had a letter from client looking a buying cigarette filter paper that had to be dioxin free. (They were basically selling lung cancer sticks but wanted to advertise Dioxin free.)


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 19, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> BTW if you have radon in your water supply, the granulated activated carbon removes it and then at some point become radioactive waste. Radon is entirely natural as well as arsenic which is problem in some areas. Its not just man made stuff.
> 
> The reality is the ability to measure these contaminants means we know they are in the water but for most contaminants there are permissible exposure limits (PEL)  set by the EPA. The PEL for a contaminant is usually orders of magnitude higher than the ability to accurately measure  a contaminant.
> 
> The environmental director at the mill I worked for had a letter from client looking a buying cigarette filter paper that had to be dioxin free. (They were basically selling lung cancer sticks but wanted to advertise Dioxin free.)



The irony in my situation is that the spent GAC from our tanks is incinerated upon replacement.  Mildly hilarious....in a not so hilarious kind of way.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Dec 19, 2019)

Rob711 said:


> So I’m going to go back to smoking cigarettes. And nothing but beer and vodka to drink!


So you're shooting for AVG health results, eh ??


----------



## Rob711 (Dec 19, 2019)

I thought about what will happen to these 5 filters that are full of crap I was trying to avoid. It will go into the landfill or incinerated a few towns over from me. Then back into the groundwater and air!!


----------



## TradEddie (Dec 20, 2019)

I strongly suggest you research the source of your information: "higher than national levels" is a worthless statement. It could  mean that your levels are just slightly above average, which could be still far below any possible danger levels, (or not).  I suspect you are on the receiving end of a sales pitch from a water treatment supplier.
If it is a municipal water supply, you can request their recent test reports, or reports may even be on their website.  Flint Michigan aside, it is not legal for a municipal water authority to supply water that does not meet EPA standards. 
If it's your own well, get it tested by an independent laboratory, not one that sells water treatments.

TE


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 20, 2019)

TradEddie said:


> I strongly suggest you research the source of your information: "higher than national levels" is a worthless statement. It could  mean that your levels are just slightly above average, which could be still far below any possible danger levels, (or not).  I suspect you are on the receiving end of a sales pitch from a water treatment supplier.
> If it is a municipal water supply, you can request their recent test reports, or reports may even be on their website.  Flint Michigan aside, it is not legal for a municipal water authority to supply water that does not meet EPA standards.
> If it's your own well, get it tested by an independent laboratory, not one that sells water treatments.
> 
> TE



In the case of PFOA/PFOS there are only a handful of states that have started to regulate "acceptable" levels.  There is no EPA/Federal regulation yet. 

The loosely referenced safe level for PFOA/PFAS is 70ppt though not enforceable by the EPA.  From a Safe Water Drinking Act standpoint any municipal water provider in a state that hasn't yet adopted an MCL (max contamination level) can sell water containing any level of PFOA/PFAS, whether or not it exceeds the 70ppt "recommended" level.

New York State (where the OP is) just recommended a maximum contaminant level in July 2019 - 20ppt.  It does not appear as law yet.  Hence, the OP may be in a water district whose water exceeds 20ppt PFOA/PFOS and since it's not yet law the water authority isn't yet addressing it.  Perhaps those levels are now public and since their buddies in Vermont passed laws a few years back setting the level at 10/14ppt....there is concern.

The moral of the story.....I think....is that you shouldn't rely on the EPA to tell you whether or not your water is safe in the case of emerging contaminants like PFOA/PFAS. 

And you'll be in for a treat when you try to get your well water tested for PFOA/PFAS.  Tests run $800-$1200 a pop and you can count the number of labs certified to test for it on one hand.  

And Flint....shoot....that isn't even remotely analogous to this topic.   Corrosive water causing lead to leach from homeowner owned pipes is worlds away from the concept of harmful chemicals being included in the raw water directly from the plant.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 21, 2019)

So back to the OP, his actual water has apparently not been tested and apparently won’t be tested as part of this wild goose chase for treatment for some unregulated contaminant. It is becoming apparent that this is a scam.

That said, gac filters are common and easily installed. It can’t hurt and will strip out other stuff like chlorine and even some sulfurs.


----------



## Rob711 (Dec 21, 2019)

I’ve always meant to add some type of filter,  I have a newly renovated home, it’s time. Long Island had a lot of companies that made degreasing chemicals.  Apparently they used to train firefighters at our airports with foam too. I acknowledge I’m slightly paranoid but I don’t fully trust the people selling me my water. No one has approached me selling filters. I simply asked because I think I get good info from this site.


----------



## stee6043 (Dec 23, 2019)

Rob711 said:


> I’ve always meant to add some type of filter,  I have a newly renovated home, it’s time. Long Island had a lot of companies that made degreasing chemicals.  Apparently they used to train firefighters at our airports with foam too. I acknowledge I’m slightly paranoid but I don’t fully trust the people selling me my water. No one has approached me selling filters. I simply asked because I think I get good info from this site.



I ran one of these buggers long before I knew anything about groundwater.  I did it mostly for odor at the time.  But I figure it's "better than nothing" for the whole house.









						GE Whole House Water Filtration System GXWH35F - The Home Depot
					

The GE Heavy-Duty Household Water Filtration Unit filters water at your home's main water supply to help reduce sediment, sand, rust, soil and silt. The heavy-duty construction is ideal for homes with



					www.homedepot.com
				




If I were to do it again I'd install two.  Sediment filter in the first, GAC in the second.  Cheap....


----------



## Rob711 (Dec 23, 2019)

I just ordered something similar to the above. I’m thinking I’ll get one of those under sink reverse osmosis deals,  but plumb it from the currently unfinished basement to fridge and maybe a tap next to sink.  I just replaced my hot water heater and some other unexpected house necessities needed taking care of.  Evidently it’s more important to finish closets vs cleaning drinking water.


----------



## Rob711 (Jan 1, 2020)

Installed this
	

		
			
		

		
	






And ordered this
Amazon product
Might all be bs but it will let me sleep better.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 2, 2020)

Looks nice! What's your normal supply pressure?
And can you supply a link for the "whole house filter"?


----------



## Rob711 (Jan 2, 2020)

Thanks, my psi from the street is 80, I also installed a pressure reduction valve after the hose and sprinklers. They come pre set to 50 psi, I adjusted it to 60. Here’s the whole house filter.
Amazon product
I put a 5 micron pleated filter in it.
  I’m going to call the manufacturer of ro filter to confirm that 80 psi will be safe for there system.  I’ve read higher psi helps the ro filter waste less water. Otherwise I can instal it after pressure reducer.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 2, 2020)

RO's usually like higher pressure but they usually have maximum pressure rating on the components. Ideally match the feed pressure to the RO to its maximum rating and then pressure reduce the non RO uses to the  rest of the house.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 2, 2020)

BTW, I have triple filter system installed but not piped for my house.  Its own my long "projects" list. Its triple filter using standards 20" filters. Something like this LiquaGen B00MTTHYBI Blue TRIPLE BIG 20'' WATER SYSTEM-1" Sediment/Carbon/GAC Filters, 4.5&quot x 20&quot

The goal is to put a sediment filter at the front to get the big stuff than a GAC (granulated activated carbon) filter in the middle and then a final GAC filter on the end. By going with standard filters bodies there are multiple suppliers to buy replacements from . In theory the sediment filter gets changed as needed more often and then the middle GAC gets changed less frequently by moving the final filter to its position while the end GAC filter gets swapped for a new filter. Note that on homes with radon in the water the GAC filter can get slightly radioactive so best to dispose of it rather than keeping them around the house. Commercial outfits are supposed to dispose of it as special waste. Definitely a bad idea to burn it in the stove.

Big filters have lower pressure drops than smaller filters and GAC works better with low flow. They cost more for the housings and filters but the filters last longer.


----------



## stee6043 (Jan 2, 2020)

Rob711 said:


> Installed this
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Did you consider using the "premium" Culigan filter instead of the pleated filter pictured?  The premium will help get "some" of the bad stuff out.  That pleated filter really does nothing but grab sediment.

For another $30 twice per year I think you'd sleep better with the premium/GAC version of the filter   Or even better, you have room to add a second housing.  Leave the existing housing with the pleated filter and add the second housing with the premium filter downstream.  Presto...but another $100, unfortunately.


----------



## Woody5506 (Jan 2, 2020)

Surprised nobody has mentioned the simple higher end gravity filters like Berkey, Alexapure or Propur. I have the 2.5 gallon "Big Berkey" and love it. Got it on a black Friday deal last year with some other stuff for about $325.


----------



## stee6043 (Jan 3, 2020)

Woody5506 said:


> Surprised nobody has mentioned the simple higher end gravity filters like Berkey, Alexapure or Propur. I have the 2.5 gallon "Big Berkey" and love it. Got it on a black Friday deal last year with some other stuff for about $325.



You could throw Brita into that list as well.   Big Berkey feels very "scammy" to me.  They are not NSF certified and their website even explains why - "it's too costly" .  Yikes.  I think you dramatically overpaid for a "pour through" water filter, my two cents only.  

For half the money you could  have picked up an RO undersink unit that would be far more effective than a countertop type setup.  Or for even less you could have nabbed a Brita which ultimately has the same filter as that Berkey.

Berkey's and Britas are probably great for taking weird tastes or odors out of water.  But you won't find either on the lists of real systems meant to remove the real bad stuff.


----------



## Woody5506 (Jan 3, 2020)

Brita is only popular because they are cheap. They don't filter heavy metals, pathogenic bacteria/viruses, and do a poor job at pretty much everything else. Their filters are good for something like 40 gallons vs a Berkey black filter good for 6,000 + gallons, plus fluoride filtering capability. Not trying to have a pissing match here just saying I really don't know how you could compare Brita to Berkey or the others I listed.  I've never seen Brita be regarded as any type of decent filter when compared to higher end brands. If NSF certification is important to you then get the Propur which is certified. Either way, there's endless independent studies around the web comparing all this stuff, constant back and forth over RO vs quality gravity filters and so on, and the Berkey outperforms everyone in the gravity filter category. If RO is your thing then thats cool too, I'm just simply throwing it out there that there's other highly effective options. 









						Berkey Purification VS Reverse Osmosis VS Distillation - EcoBlueLife.com
					

Water systems that utilize water purification methods like Reverse Osmosis (R.O.), distillation, Berkey purification, and so forth deliver pure water. There are other purification methods, yet these are the most...




					ecobluelife.com
				








__





						Big Berkey black ceramic elements with arsenic / fluoride add-on elements - WaterFilterLabs.com
					





					www.waterfilterlabs.com


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 3, 2020)

Nothing for or against the Berkey but both of the cited links are pretty sketchy. The Water Filter Labs "test" seems to exclude a fairly important bit of data which is if any of the listed contaminants were actually in the feedwater?. If I feed a filter distilled water with zero contaminants and the test is if there is any present at the outlet then the filter was 100% effective. The other link sure looks like they may be beholden to Berkey.

Inherently GAC is pretty well known. A gravity filter is as good as bad as the depth of the filter media. Unlike a pressurized filter, the velocity is low and the pressure doesnt tend to "rat hole" the product. With that in mind as long as Berkey uses quality media it should work

On occasion I deal with boiler feedwater for superheated steam fed to steam turbines. Power plants go with what works and skip the hype. The water has to be super pure as any impurities foul up the clearances of the  blades. Generally the systems use sediment filters up ahead of deep bed ion exchange resins. Newer systems use reverse osmosis as they cost less to install and maintain.  I dont see activated carbon in any of the systems. I have looked at electrodeionization (EDI) systems in the past which seem to be the best technology for raw water but its not a good fit for an operation that recycles its condensate as the EDI membranes will not hold up to heat. Some of the RO tehnologies have the same issue. Usually there is ion exchange system on the return condensate as it designed for heat.

I did have a chance in my career to work on a system designed by  Eastman Kodak in the 1880s to treat water to remove dissolved color from the water to make photo graphic paper whihc had to be ultra white, it used deep gravity beds of crushed coal ( a precursor to activated carbon). The plant is still running after 140 years although the current owner does a poor job maintaining it.  GAC and crushed coal both have only limited capacity to absorb contaminants so generally conductivity testing is used to confirm that the systems are operating correctly.


----------



## stee6043 (Jan 3, 2020)

Woody5506 said:


> Brita is only popular because they are cheap. They don't filter heavy metals, pathogenic bacteria/viruses, and do a poor job at pretty much everything else. Their filters are good for something like 40 gallons vs a Berkey black filter good for 6,000 + gallons, plus fluoride filtering capability. Not trying to have a pissing match here just saying I really don't know how you could compare Brita to Berkey or the others I listed.  I've never seen Brita be regarded as any type of decent filter when compared to higher end brands. If NSF certification is important to you then get the Propur which is certified. Either way, there's endless independent studies around the web comparing all this stuff, constant back and forth over RO vs quality gravity filters and so on, and the Berkey outperforms everyone in the gravity filter category. If RO is your thing then thats cool too, I'm just simply throwing it out there that there's other highly effective options.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agree on the pissing match.  I enjoy these discussions, I'm not trying to make any of this personal.  I'm just trying to help have an informed discussion.

On RO there should really be no "back and forth" debate.  It's not really regarded in the same class as gravity??  For a non-plumbed filter solution obviously gravity is the way to go.

In the interest of furtherance of our informed discussion - a link below to the NSF info on home pour-through filters.  Brita maintains certs for odor, chlorine, etc. in addition to cadmium, mercury and copper (heavy metals) on their $19.99 3-pack of pitcher filters.  Yes, they are definitely limited in their capacity - 120 gallons for $19.99 vs. 6,000 gallons for $120 on the Berkey.  $0.16 per gallon vs $0.02 per gallon.   It's a two year Berkey break even for the amount of point-of-use drinking water my family of 5 goes through (20 gallons per week). 

I'd be shocked if you found the filter media in the Berkey was substantially different than Brita and all the rest.  GAC is GAC.  You can find a Brita MSDS by googling it.  Not so for the Berkey..."it's proprietary".  If the Berkey GAC has been modified with silver or copper it could indeed also have anti-viral/bacterial capability but at what cost - you're using heavy metals to filter for the virus?  "High end" water filtration uses UV (or commercially, chlorine) to kill bacteria/viruses.









						Drinking Water
					

Our mission is to improve global health through the development of standards and certifications that protect food, water, products and the environment.




					www.nsf.org
				




I don't have a hard-on for NSF but I find their website to be very valuable for water treatment baseline.  Shoot, the system I have in my home is not NSF certified....for anything.  But I see quarterly test results for inlet water, midpoint water and output water that show GAC gets "darn near everything" out of water if there is enough contact time.

My opinion only - the Berkey is to water filtration as the Peloton is to stationary cycling - a brilliant, profitable marketing strategy.  Folks perceive the Peloton as a higher value, higher quality unit because it costs more....but it's performing nearly the same function as a $200 stationary bike you can get at Sears combined with a $25 Kindle...


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 3, 2020)

Pleated paper filters and pour through solutions are not what I expect to see as a real solution for a real raw water problem.


----------



## semipro (Jan 4, 2020)

As I mentioned earlier in this thread we have particulate filter followed by GAC and RO.  The particulate filter is a composite, 25 micron unit that I feel I have to clean or replace too frequently.   I've bought one of the 150 micron pre-filters shown below in hopes that installing it before the 25 micron filter will extend its life.  The pre-filter design is interesting in that sediment that accumulates can be readily flushed out.


----------



## Woody5506 (Jan 6, 2020)

stee6043 said:


> My opinion only - the Berkey is to water filtration as the Peloton is to stationary cycling - a brilliant, profitable marketing strategy.  Folks perceive the Peloton as a higher value, higher quality unit because it costs more....but it's performing nearly the same function as a $200 stationary bike you can get at Sears combined with a $25 Kindle...




I think Berkey is a bit more marketed toward the "preparedness" crowd much more so than Brita, especially since you can filter pond water with it if you had to. Truthfully I agree Brita would probably suit my needs fine being that as far as I know, we don't have actual tap water issues that we know of aside from the norms. But with fluoride filtering capability (we do use those separate filters) virus/heavy metal filtering  and longevity of filters it ended up being a selling point. Again I still stand by it being a solid purchase for our house, and the analogy to Peloton is a bit off since most of these similarly constructed stainless gravity filters are all fairly within similar price range, the Berkey is not drastically higher than the others I listed, and yes they are all much more expensive than Brita but again they end up doing more.  Despite the lack of NSF cert there's still EPA accredited labs who have done extensive tests on Berkey filters which for me, combined with all the countless other tests around the web, is fair enough. I can't say that I feel scammed by them one bit.


----------



## Woody5506 (Jan 6, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> The Water Filter Labs "test" seems to exclude a fairly important bit of data which is if any of the listed contaminants were actually in the feedwater?. If I feed a filter distilled water with zero contaminants and the test is if there is any present at the outlet then the filter was 100% effective.



Unless you're suggesting they fed the Berkey distilled water only but the other brands contaminated water, I don't see how this would be the case if they are all reading at different percentages.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 6, 2020)

Woody5506 said:


> Unless you're suggesting they fed the Berkey distilled water only but the other brands contaminated water, I don't see how this would be the case if they are all reading at different percentages.



Show us a genuine third party truly independent test from a recognized body and we have something to talk about. What I pointed out are that the links provided did not appear to be unbiased rigorous testing. Until then its just marketing hype.


----------



## Woody5506 (Jan 6, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Show us a genuine third party truly independent test from a recognized body and we have something to talk about. What I pointed out are that the links provided did not appear to be unbiased rigorous testing. Until then its just marketing hype.



The best I can do right off the cuff is show results from EPA accredited labs, but being that they are published on a Berkey site, I have a feeling it won't satisfy you. The documents are there though.  I'm not a salesmen I'm simply just trying to back up a product I bought that I believe in, which is an alternative to a simple RO system. 









						What does Berkey Water Filter remove? Lab Test Results
					

Our goal is to provide purification and filtration systems that can remove and reduce as many toxic contaminants as possible without removing all the healthful and beneficial minerals your body needs. The Berkey Water Filter Systems are more powerful than any other gravity filter element...




					theberkey.com


----------



## Rob711 (Jan 6, 2020)

Well it’s done. I may or may not trim the 1/4” lines to clean it up. I should’ve waited until I had everything, i could have raised up where I came off main to make it cleaner. It’s feeding only the fridge. Taste exactly like the tap water! I’m not sure there was any issues with the water to begin with. Oh well!


----------



## stee6043 (Jan 6, 2020)

If you guys enjoy exploring the interweb...for entertainment purposes:

Check out the google maps view of the listed address for the "accredited lab" listed by Berkey.  Also note that this lab appears to certify many of the similar filter makers noted in this thread.  If you google the "EPA ID" listed on the cert you'll see similar certs for several of the noted mfg's in this thread - Propur, Doulton, etc.

Note that those EPA ID's appear to be fake.  If you check both the EPA and state of NJ sites for a list of accredited drinking water labs in NJ, Envirotek nor QFT are listed.

A cursory review suggests this place is a one man show run by Jaime Young, an undergrad in chemistry from UofPanama.  He used to work for Zero Industries (Zero Water, a filter manufacturer similar to Berkey but priced like Brita).  His address looks to change every few years.  He does maintain a linkedin profile, however.

You can also google "NELAC" which is referenced on the top left of all of the Envirotek certs.  Envirotek uses the words "in accordance with" because they are not actually accredited by NELAC...nor anybody else.

There's nothing illegal about what they are doing as far as I can tell.  You don't have to maintain certifications to sell filters.  It's like UL in electronics...quite optional and up to the buyer to insist on certain things.


----------



## semipro (Jan 6, 2020)

Woody5506 said:


> I'm not a salesmen I'm simply just trying to back up a product I bought that I believe in, which is an alternative to a simple RO system.


The water treatment provided by a GAC system like the Berkey is not the same as that of RO.  GAC works on the basis of adsorption while RO relies on osmosis (transfer though a semi-permeable membrane).  While GAC is good at removing contaminants like chlorine or organic compounds its not good at removing metals or dissolved solids like salts and other minerals like calcium and magnesium (i.e., hardness).


----------



## semipro (Jan 6, 2020)

Rob711 said:


> It’s feeding only the fridge.


And the fridge probably has a GAC filter in it also. 
If you notice that your ice cubes look clearer that's a sign that you've removed something from the water.


----------



## Rob711 (Jan 7, 2020)

My fridge did have a small filter, it came with a bypass plug which is now installed.  That one filter cost more to replace than all the filters on this system, minus the reverse osmosis membrane.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 7, 2020)

Rob711 said:


> My fridge did have a small filter, it came with a bypass plug which is now installed.  That one filter cost more to replace than all the filters on this system, minus the reverse osmosis membrane.


Welcome to the world of marketing. Sell the appliance at tight margin and then make it up selling highly marked up things like filters. I have rigged up standardized GAC filters on fridges for folks in the past. Not that tough but to the average homeowner they call in service man to swap the custom filter.

I realize I am the odd man out compared to the rest of the world. I have had my house for 30 years and with exception of a yearly burner tech when I burned oil the number of service folks who have entered my home is zero.  I did pay to have my septic tank pumped 15 year ago.  It didnt need it but out of caution I had it done.


----------



## Woody5506 (Jan 7, 2020)

stee6043 said:


> There's nothing illegal about what they are doing as far as I can tell.  You don't have to maintain certifications to sell filters.  It's like UL in electronics...quite optional and up to the buyer to insist on certain things.




I would think falsifying an EPA ID number and publishing the document (in this case basically to sell their product)  would be illegal. "Uttering" comes to mind. In that case, I don't know how they'd keep getting away with it after all these years. 




semipro said:


> The water treatment provided by a GAC system like the Berkey is not the same as that of RO.  GAC works on the basis of adsorption while RO relies on osmosis (transfer though a semi-permeable membrane).  While GAC is good at removing contaminants like chlorine or organic compounds its not good at removing metals or dissolved solids like salts and other minerals like calcium and magnesium (i.e., hardness).



I understand that GAC wouldn't be a solution for hard water.  In the case of Berkey, I'll say that *supposedly* it does remove heavy metals.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jan 7, 2020)

We have very good water but everytime they replace a main pipe section we get a surge of sediment. This sediment messes up and blocks up all kinds of things like toilet valves ,hot water mixing valves boiler pressure regulators , fill valves,low flow shower head, temp balancing shower valve ect ect.  Some of these valves and regulators are very expensive.  Been using a whole house filter for years now and its a good investment for the  $35 cost.


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2020)

I put in a whole house filter many years ago, mainly to trap sediments. I was tired of replacing faucet washers that got grit embedded. About 5 yrs. later, the filter housing blew apart and flooded our pit basement. What a mess. Almost lost the furnace. If you are going to put in a filter, do not buy this type where the filter container threads over the filter head.



Ours blew apart right below where the theads start, where the gasket seal is. 

Instead get a filter body that threads into the filter head like this.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 6, 2020)

Sounds like you need a pressure regulator.  High water pressure is also hard on valves and other plumbing fixtures. That was the first thing i installed after the pressure actually blew a soldered fitting apart and flooded the basement.


----------



## Highbeam (Feb 7, 2020)

I was warned about the clear plastic filter bowls shattering as @begreen notes. Apparently making plastic clear also makes it less durable in this application. Still, I own one as a prefilter to my iron filter to remove well scale and chunks. It has a screen in it and male threads on the clear bowl as bgreen recommends. I check it for spider cracking regularly. The clear plastic is hard to see through as the iron has stained it brown.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 7, 2020)

I have 2 of those clear plastic filters for quite some time now. Only problem iv ever had was they start leaking from inside the top. I think theres an o ring in there.


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2020)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Sounds like you need a pressure regulator.  High water pressure is also hard on valves and other plumbing fixtures. That was the first thing i installed after the pressure actually blew a soldered fitting apart and flooded the basement.


There is a pressure regulator ahead of it at the meter. 60psi. This happened in the o-ring area because of the pressure exerted when one tightens up the filter. The other design prevents this issue. It is the type of filters I installed on lab machines and I never had a failure with them.

Amazingly this failure happened within an hour of us coming back from a vacation. We didn't notice it for an hour or so. Had it happened while we were away the results would have been much much worse.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 7, 2020)

Our pressure is about 60 to 70 coming in ,iv regulated it down to about 30. 
 I dont know if this is why iv never had a fracture with it. I do know they dont sell this particular model anymore and the replacement is quite a bit more expensive, but ill always have one on my system.  Its possible they have beefed it up some or changed the design like you pictured.


----------



## stee6043 (Feb 7, 2020)

Do you have a sump or drain in your basement?  Cheap insurance against the bursting filters could be a 5 gallon bucket below the filter with a cheapo hose running to a nearby sump/drain.  $10 or less


----------



## Bad LP (Feb 7, 2020)

I’m only chasing a little grit and want it removed to prevent damage to the ceramic cartridges in my plumbing fixtures. 
A quick backwash every 4 or so months and I’m good to go.


----------

