Under Sink Water Filter

Save yourself a fortune and get a Brita jug filter and keep that in the fridge.

Rataan wrote: »

I already did that! I found it was totally useless. The water tasted exactly the same out of the Brita jug as it did straight from the tap. Anyway, you have to replace the jug filters every month, so the annual cost of filter changes for both systems probably works out roughly the same.

If it tastes exactly the same, you're doing something wrong.

As antiskeptic says, the filters last a lot longer than a month. Filters in the under sink options will need to be replaced as well, and will likely cost more.

I got my undersink filter from Simply Water. The taste is much nicer from filtered water but I don't have very chlorinated water.

volku wrote: »

I have my rainwater harvested since August 2014.
We use mineral water Tipperary for drinking, cooking, etc.
Rainwater is used for washing, washing machines and toilets.
It is filtered with 5 micron filter plus UV lamp.
You cannot imagine how soft and nice in touch it is.
Unexpectly last January 2015 was pretty dry and my tank 3000litres lasts only 2 weeks with no rain. We were backed to mains water (like in swimming-pools)
my and my wife's flareing skin got extremely dry, my little son (4 y.o.) got spots on his face etc.
Same effects as many other people's faces. and you are told it is psioriasis,, eczema or some genetic sh*t. It is not
Google "chlorinated water and health" or "fluorinated water and health"
Do not ever drink tap water!!!
to save my rainwater I use the mains water for flushing the toilets and washing my car ONLY.
MAINS WATER IS A CHEMICALLY POISONED.
and now we are also asked to pay for it...

DO NOT SAVE ON YOUR CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
SAVE ON DOCTORS and IRISH WATER BILLS

Isn't for all those reasons that she is looking for filters?
I'm doing the same kind of research.
We are going to pay water now, so I don't want waste other money buying mineral water (which I never know where is really coming for).

At the moment me and my partner are spending 12 euros per week for mineral water, plus we have to add the water bill on it.
I suppose would be better spend around 250 euro for a good filtration system.

I believe the 5 filter RO would be the best option since is removing the chlorine as well as the fluoride.

what do you think guys?

Zuzi wrote: »

Isn't for all those reasons that she is looking for filters?
I'm doing the same kind of research.
We are going to pay water now, so I don't want waste other money buying mineral water (which I never know where is really coming for).

At the moment me and my partner are spending 12 euros per week for mineral water, plus we have to add the water bill on it.
I suppose would be better spend around 250 euro for a good filtration system.

I believe the 5 filter RO would be the best option since is removing the chlorine as well as the fluoride.

what do you think guys?

Mineral water does not have a 1/10th of the regulations tap water has applied, and can easily have chloride and fluoride levels far in excess of tap water, because it is practically unregulated for levels of chemicals, and classed more like a food group.

Food is similar in that as long as there is no high levels of bacteria, the chemical composition of some foods can carry some amazingly high levels of odd things you would never find allowed in tap water. Say sodium chloride concentrations, in mustard, soya sauce, anchovies, easily 10 to 50 times tap water levels. Same for a wide range of other additives or naturally found substances, much more in excess than the limited concentrations in tap water.

So if mineral water is classed as a food / beverage, then you can say it is okay to quadruple many things that have tight limits set in tap water, such as sulphates, phosphates, heavy metals, iron, manganese, arsenic, etc. Also bottled water has no pH or acidity controls so the safe tap water limits of 6.5 pH to 9.5 pH are not present in the controls of bottled water acidity, say carbonated waters - Perrier for example being 5.7 pH.

Bottled water can fail on 10 separate parameters tested in the lab, at even 10 times the safe levels set for tap water, and it would pass food standards okay as long as there is minimal bacteria. Even then bottle waters fail 7 out of 10 times when tested for bacteriological issues in both Europe and the US when large investigations are conducted on bottles stored on supermarket shelves.

Many of brands of bottled water have under 20ppm of calcium, Volvic would be around 20ppm. Many brands are as low as zero mineral content, and many bottled waters use tap water as their source water. Either way there are 100% of usable minerals in food.

Bottled water can be 1000 times the cost per litre of municipal tap water. And has a massive carbon foot print. And land fill concerns. Many bottled waters take from 5 to 10 litres of water per each litre processed and delivered to process them from source to supermarket, anything up to 25 litres per litre.

Mineral water, (by definition - water molecules that contains dissolved material) is water that usually contains at least 250 parts per million of dissolved solids, and typically from 0 to 250 ppm of dissolved solids for spring waters. A mineral can also be defined as any solid containing a uniform structure such as rock.

By definition, mineral water is impure. Also by definition pure water is a much safer water that is just water molecules without colour, taste or odour. When minerals are introduced into water they can often mask the taste of underlying impurities that are not so desirable to the human body.

We require a certain amount of trace minerals to maintain our health, certainly. However, organic trace minerals found in safe composition in foods are needed in such small quantities that anyone with a balanced diet will have no need to overload their systems with excessive minerals.

There are uncertain and varying levels of impurities in all types of mineral and spring waters. So there may be practically no mineral content in spring waters. Other mineral waters heavy in impurities as we know can exceed EU Drinking Water Directives.

People can develop a powerful belief that they can do something very simple to improve their health. But you may have no idea of the identity or level of the dissolved impurities in bottled waters.

As for the taste of water, pure water is defined as having no taste. Popular spring and mineral waters have 0% to 0.01% by volume of minerals. So the effect of taste is really insignificant. There are no calories, vitamins or any nutritional content. So it is more a question of avoiding bad tastes and impurities, not so much whether taste masking minerals are present.


So tap water is getting towards a very good standard based on strict regulations and with the removal of chlorine and fluoride for better taste a filter system can guarantee a higher standard - and no better systems than reverse osmosis for this.

cerastes wrote: »

Im not so sure it'd be as cost effective, I currently use a Brita filter, but dont keep the jug in the fridge, mostly as it doesnt fit and would strain the door, if it did, plus the hassle of lugging a big jug in and out. We keep a smaller jug in the door with filtered water.



There is definitely a taste difference with the water we filter, but like you, Im interested in a seperate water filter, Id like it high enough to fill jugs that sit on the counter beside the tap too.



Do they? I used to go by the digital indicator till it broke, even replacing the battery myself but the indicator failed after that anyway.
How long should a filter last, I did give it a month but was testing longer, 2 months acceptable? I cant tell any taste difference even now. Im a bit concerned about whats going on in the filter, plus mine is out on the counter which is sometimes under the sun.

Usually we use this water to cook and make tea/hot drinks, I think there is a noticeable difference to using the tap water directly. The stuff we drink as water or added to diluteable is cooled in the fridge.




They do? 2 months, where do they say that? mine were lasting me a month by the indicator, but I was pushing that longer, how much do you consider they will last and why?
Any further use for the contents of the filters in a rain water harvesting system or can they be regenerated in any way for that purpose, at the worst I can hardly see them causing problems there.

Id still have thought replacing a filter for a single tap would be better than replacing in a jug, usually those filters are larger, but my main concern would be getting a reliable source to obtain the filter and ensuring the quality and ability of the filter to remove contaminants, any standards to that? Im sure there are good cheap options available online, but its just to ensure their authenticity.

On a side note, I didnt think RO was considered normal or healthy for water to be consumed as its missing essential elements? I read something about it recently but have no link.
Id definitely consider it for cleaning rainwater though along with UV.

Compare Brita jugs to the best and most cost effective under sink plumbed systems ...


Aquaphor Crystal and Aquaphor Crystal B on sale from €99 to €165 for variants (DIY in the box), up to €199 top models / to €299 installed with on site cover.




Brita described as basic jug filter for around €20 to €40, with 0.2 litre approx filter media, lowish grade loose carbon filter material, with €6 per month filters, 12 filters a year, 60 filter changes over 5 years at €390 total running costs. Basic filtration is expected at 90-95% chlorine removal, 90-95% colour, odour, taste removal, 10% heavy metal reduction, 1% bacteria / cyst reduction. Counter top jug.

Aquaphor Crystal described as ultra high level triple filter for around €99 to €199 DIY, with 1.5 litre approx filter media, super high grade carbon block mesh filter material, with €0 per month filters, can last zero changes to 5 years at €0 total running costs. High level filtration at 100% chlorine removal, 100% colour, odour, taste removal, 100% heavy metal reduction, 100% bacteria / cyst reduction (nominal) or B model 100% bacteria / cyst reduction (absolute). Plumbed in under sink.

(Brita 930 employees / Aquaphor 2100 employees.)


Also comparing like for like Brita jugs V's Aquaphor jugs, Aquaphor contaminant removal ability for filter jugs brutally destroy Brita on these rankings, see video (see from 0 to 2 minutes introduction - then from 2 to 3 minutes Aquaphor V's Brita smackdown and demolition of Brita very poor filtering ability) ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFwt8oGjv58

Sorry to jump in. Was thinking of getting one of these myself this week and I'm wondering what the big difference between the 2 below is? I want to get rid of Trihalomethanes and chlorine mostly (our area is very bad for these).

AQUAPHOR SOLO B - 99 quid

AQUAPHOR CRYSTAL SOFTENING - 165 Euro

gutteruu wrote: »

Sorry to jump in. Was thinking of getting one of these myself this week and I'm wondering what the big difference between the 2 below is? I want to get rid of Trihalomethanes and chlorine mostly (our area is very bad for these).

AQUAPHOR SOLO B - 99 quid

AQUAPHOR CRYSTAL SOFTENING - 165 Euro

Aquaphor Solo B



This is a single filter system including basic tap or designer faucet dispensing tap using the record breaking Aquaphor K7B cartridge, formerly coded K1-07B, which has the most levels / stages / aspects of filtration of a single filter cartridge than any on the market. These are the things it does ...

1) 0.8 micron carbon block screening with ion exchange Aqualen, for cysts and bacteria

2) removal of chlorine, grit, sediment, iron, heavy metals, odour, colour taste, organic compounds, THM

3) 0.1 micron Mitsubishi UF ultrafiltration, HF hollow fibre membrane 0.02 micron nominal, small micro-organisms, turbidity


Aquaphor Crystal H (softening) [Most effective for chlorine and THM removal]



This is a triple filter unit including basic tap or designer faucet dispensing tap, using an Aquaphor K3 cartridge, also KH and K7. These are the things it does ...

1) 5 micron carbon block screening with ion exchange Aqualen, for grit, sediment, iron, heavy metals, odour, colour taste, organic compounds, THM

2) reduction of hardness (limescaling) cartridge limited to 1 month on average water use

3) 0.8 micron carbon block screening with ion exchange Aqualen, for cysts and bacteria, grit, sediment, iron, heavy metals, odour, colour taste, organic compounds, THM

cerastes wrote:

Id consider getting something like the top one which is a filter, the second one is a softener (but looks like it has a filter also) which reduces the hardness of the water, it affects the properties of minerals in the water to reduce their ability to form scale I believe, but my understanding of that is it affects the minerals chemically.

The prices of the filters seem steep, but I wonder how you determine the filter life, its given as 4000 and 6000 litres, do you then have to add a flow meter onto the line???

I wondered if there was a way to tell when my Brita or Generic Brita filters had done as much filtering as they could, I had considered the build up of contaminants over time might make the water taste different but I havent noticed, at least the effectiveness of the filter must be reduced, but is there a potential problem with bacteria in the filter element? or creating a worse situation that not filtering at all?

I'll see how it goes in the end and look out for reviews of any of the products, but I might end up looking for something like that in a replacement fridge with a filter and where the contents are cooled, although I had thought that kind of filter might be generic but possibly more expensive to replace being associated with a fridge, plus for cooking you dont need to reheat chilled water.

Aquaphor products have no effect on minerals chemically. Aquaphor Solo B (full system), are sold for the lowest sale prices in Ireland at Zen Water Filters in Clonmel, from €59 to €69 thereabouts at times, or Aquaphor Crystal (full system) from €139 to €149 on sale every so often.

Fridge filters are not to be used with organically compromised water, basic mains chlorinated only, to remove some chlorine in short intervals, 3 to 6 months, but no advanced filtering abilities.

Brita filters if not changed often will provide for a much worse scenario than having the filter at all, as exhausted basic grades of carbon found in Brita, unable to soak away any further chlorine beyond total absorbtion point along with building up sediments and organic compounds, may become an ideal nest for bacteria allowing higher levels to fester within an exhausted bed of loose granualr activated carbon. Far better grades of carbon use solid walls of compounded carbon block or carbon fibre block that mechanically dispel any bacteria through a sub micron bacterial barrier, rather than passing through or nesting in exhausted loose granular powder media like Brita use.

Dtp1979 wrote: »

@aah yes
You have extensive knowledge and at times I'm finding it hard to keep up. A few questions,
-Is standard mains tap water good enough in your opinion to drink everyday?
-I've been told RO systems are bad to drink from because it removes all minerals from the water?
-by adding a re-mineralising cartridge, do this make the water much healthier and better to drink?
- is RO water better for you than mains water?

mains water all round is the best commonly sourced water we have had access to for millions of years, where if you drink it you are not likely to get ill next day or next week, and as long as no boil water notice and no lead pipes etc, should be grand apart from aesthetics on some public supplies - chlorine etc. choices for filters are plentiful for chlorine removal, bacteria safeguard, fluoride removal etc.

adding mineralising cartridge will do nothing in my technical, ethical, sensible, overall, all round view. people eat food. people get 100% minerals from food. introduction of bottled waters with minerals in decades gone by is a marketing sales sham, waffle fest. bottled waters of varying tastes are a handy selection when you are on hols or out and about, why not.

RO certainly better than mains water, absolute guarantee, also more so well water, or spring water, or rain tank water etc

Dtp1979 wrote: »

So RO is fine to drink without the re-mineralisation cartridge?
What state does the RO leave the treated water in, after it's been filtered through all the stages?

Close to technically perfect drinking water.

Ask yourself if you eat a normal diet ? If so you are getting the range and scope and numbers of minerals that your body needs. Various waters, tap, bottled, filtered, stream, lake, rain water, can't provide the minerals that foods provide.

If you stop eating food and only drink beverages, say milk or juices, tea, coffee, fizzy pops, beers, wines, etc, then you could supplement nutrition with tablets etc, even water or various types, mineral or spring waters lower minerals, really not much different either way even RO water is perfect.

But if you eat food every day, then you are fine. Food is the transport system of 100% of all your minerals, vitamins, calories, nutrition etc. No kinds of water are any replacement for food.

Once you have got your food and your minerals, vitamins, nutrients etc, then it is on to hydration ...


RO provides the most perfect form of filtered water hydration less the contaminants and un-required adulterations, such as chlorine, fluorides, possible bacteria, heavy metals, THM's, etc.

RO does offer optimum levels of mineral at 10 or 20 ppm if you ate no food and thought if no milk, no juices, no tea /coffee, beers, wines etc, that water was the only hydration then yes RO would be pretty perfect hydration method all round.

Not all RO systems are the same. Bog standard chinese made skeleton RO units are failry much junk on a build quality basis but provide excellent water, even better are the likes of Aquaphor Morion, the planet's ultimate RO with mineral options for those worried about their food intake, diet programs.

99.9% of the time most people don't need to choose between different types of RO system with or without mineral reduction levels, most RO systems after a few years allow an increasingly higher level of minerals in past membranes anyway, although start with allowing an acceptable level through, if there was an agreed agreeable level, also many models do have mineral cartridge options, but agian they are only made for fears about things that don't exist.

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Very helpful. Thanks.
You mentioned earlier that that there's a unit that dumps a lot less waste water than normal models?
Which unit is it and how often have filters to be changed?

The Aquaphor Morion (Ireland 100) model RO halves the water use that other standard RO systems use at around 10 to 1 water ratio in Ireland.

Ideal ratios as low as 5 to 1 for standard RO systems (2.5 to 1 for Aquaphor) depend on water temperature and pressure of 25 C and 60 psi, but in Ireland we have cooler water from 5 to 15 C and lower pressures all round from 30 to 50 psi.

RO water use is normally 2 litres of filtered water per person per day or up to 10 litres drawn from most family used RO systems per day, using 20 litres per person or up to 100 litres per day.

If you multiply 365 by 20 or 100 then you have 7,300 per person or 36,500 litres per year. Each 1000 litres is 1 cubic metre or metered water costs of €1 to €2 per m3 depending if you have a sceptic system, so €7 per person or €14 and up to €36 per family or up to €73 per year per family for standard chinese made RO systems.

For worst scenario cool water temperatures and lowish water pressures in Ireland. Better if water warmer or pressure higher, possibly halve the amounts.


Aquaphor halves the worst scenario to €3.50 to €7 per person per year drinking 700 litres per year costing 3.5 cubic metres per year in metered water use. Or €17.50 to €35 per family. (More of a Dublin City scenario where low water pressures exist.)

Aquaphor allows the best scenario to €1.75 to €3.50 per person per year drinking 700 litres per year costing 3.5 cubic metres per year in metered water use. Or €8.75 to €17.50 per family. (At warmer water temperatures and higher pressures - usually found in more rural areas to the West of Ireland.)


Finally Aquaphor was the first manufacturer to successfully develop the world's first none electric sub 30 psi RO model (other standard unpumped RO models require over 40 psi) allowing the savings of several hours per day of a 30 watt electric pump (found on most models of Chinese RO systems), about 5 cents a day or €15 to €20 per year in electric.

So adding up water and electric savings over a standard electric pumped RO per year, the Aquaphor Morion ranges from around €35 to €55 savings per year operating costs over chinese pumped models.


Then of course filter savings, the main cost savings ... Aquaphor RO systems use half the water of standard RO models so the filters get half the wear and tear and last for twice as long.

Doubling up on filter savings allows Aquaphor systems to run for up to 2 to 3 years for pre-filter changes. Also many Aquaphor models are sold with 5 years worth of free filters saving €50 to €165 per years on servicing costs over standard RO's whether DIY or callout serviced.

Ultimately saving another €200 to €660 every 5 years in filter cartridges. + €175 to €275 over 5 years in electric and water savings over standard pumped RO models.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CMtXBJuMvI

lgk wrote: »

Some fine sales pitch there...

From your numbers, you seem to be choosing the worst case scenario for Brita Vs. best case for your alternative...



But Britas cost around €15, buy a pack of filters and you're paying ~€4.50 per filter. Cheaper generics are available too. If you're only after getting rid of the fluoride taste, then a filter will last 3, and most likely 6+ months.





Don't get how this should be of any relevance to anyone. Dacia employ a lot more people than Aston Martin, so Dacia is better?

You can't remove fluoride with a Brita jug.