Under Sink Water Filter

Rataan

I want to install a water filter under the sink, but the options that are available from online suppliers are quite confusing, so I'm hoping that somebody here can give me a bit of advice.

I live in North County Dublin and the tap water does not taste nice. I'm not concerned about the quality of the water, I just want to remove the chlorine/chemical taste and smell. From looking online there seems to be different types of single stage and 3 or 4 stage filters, with prices ranging from 100 euro to 500 euro.

Can anybody advise if single stage is enough for what I want to achieve? Also, I would be concerned that mains water pressure would not be enough to drive the water through the filter. Am I completely wrong about this? I don't want to have to install a pump to boost the pressure as well.

Calahonda52

This whole market is completely unregulated as to the claims being made so I would not be buying on line. You need bricks and mortar so as you know what you are getting and kniw wher h can get replacement filters.
U aldo need an additional tap so as uts jyst fir drinking, otherwise u will be replacing the filters rapido.
I would start off with one, u can always add the others.
Look for the volume of water each one will process before filter needs replacing.

lgk

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

sky6

It depends if you want to filter all water or just drinking water. If just Drinking then you will need a second Tap.
Maybe an RO system is what you need. But you can get single filters to just remove Chlorine. I wouldn't be spending any more than 200 ish E for what you need.

Rataan

Calahonda52 wrote: »

This whole market is completely unregulated as to the claims being made so I would not be buying on line. You need bricks and mortar so as you know what you are getting and kniw wher h can get replacement filters.
U aldo need an additional tap so as uts jyst fir drinking, otherwise u will be replacing the filters rapido.
I would start off with one, u can always add the others.
Look for the volume of water each one will process before filter needs replacing.

When I said I was looking online, I was Googling "under sink water filter" and looking at the top 4 or 5 hits with a .ie web address. My preference would be to buy from an established Irish company, rather than buying the components off some randomer on the net. Is this what you meant by "bricks and mortar" companies? Do you have any experience or recommendations for any companies that you could post here or PM me?

Rataan

lgk wrote: »

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

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.

Rataan

sky6 wrote: »

It depends if you want to filter all water or just drinking water. If just Drinking then you will need a second Tap.
Maybe an RO system is what you need. But you can get single filters to just remove Chlorine. I wouldn't be spending any more than 200 ish E for what you need.

I only want to filter the drinking water, so yes, I would also need to install a second tap.

I would have thought that an RO system would be going a bit overboard for what I need? I'm not concerned about the quality of my water, just the taste of it. I was thinking that 200 euro would be my budget for a filter system, but I just wanted to be absolutely sure that it would improve the taste of the water before I fork out the money for it. Hence why I'm asking on Boards if anybody has installed a single filter for this reason and has it worked out for them.

antiskeptic

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.

1) Are you sure you've given the filter time to bed in per instructions? Taking chlorine taste out is straightforward for a Brita

2) You have to change it when the chlorine taste comes back - forget about the auto timer gimmick on the lid

3) Beware if you've kidney problems. You get extra potassium via the filter which kidney disease might not like.

lgk

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.

Rataan

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) Are you sure you've given the filter time to bed in per instructions? Taking chlorine taste out is straightforward for a Brita

2) You have to change it when the chlorine taste comes back - forget about the auto timer gimmick on the lid

3) Beware if you've kidney problems. You get extra potassium via the filter which kidney disease might not like.

I used the Brita jug for about a year before I gave up on it, and yes, I did read and follow the instructions. The chlorine taste never improved. There was no difference in taste between it and tap water. I’ve even tasted water from other peoples Brita jugs, and to me it also tasted just like tap water! For me it was a case of “emperor’s new clothes” with my Brita jug. After forking out the money on the jug and the filters I was trying to convince myself that it was making a difference but after about a year I admitted defeat and threw it out!

The reason I’m on here asking about under sink filters is that I don’t want the same thing to happen again. If I could be guaranteed that the chlorine/chemical taste could be removed, I’d happily pay out 200 euro to have a system installed.

Thanks for the info about the extra potassium in the filters, I was not aware of that. Were you referring to the Brita filters, or the under-the-sink filters, or both?

Rataan

lgk wrote: »

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.

Or, there is a very strong taste of chlorine from the water in my area, which a Brita filter cannot remove. I’ve tasted it from another person’s Brita who lives in my area, and it tasted the same.

I don’t see how I could be doing anything wrong. The filter clicks into place. The only way to do it wrong would be to either not put the filter in at all, or to not fully click it into place.

A 12 pack of Brita filters (1 years supply) costs 56 euro from Argos. From what I can see online (and I’m open to correction on this) is that a replacement filter for a single stage under-the-sink filtration unit costs about 10 euro, and it would have to be replaced twice a year.

lgk

Brita say to change the filters every two months, but unless you drink a lot, they will last a lot longer. If the Brita filter doesn't remove the taste for you, you might be best sticking with bottled water as many of the under sink options don't claim to remove any more chlorine than the Brita filters do. Argos do a 6 pack for €23.44, you'll get cheaper online, and even cheaper generic cartridges.

Most under sink units recommend an annual service to include filter replacements @ €100-140.

Wyldwood

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

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

Zuzi

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?

aah yes

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

Okay, lets take a breath and mellow out a wee bit.

Tap water is just water with varying levels of mineral content up to 400ppm and 500ppm but with a tiny level of 0.1ppm of chlorine added so as to avoid cholera outbreaks the likes seen in Victorian London or Napoleonic Paris or recently in Zimbabwee and post earthquake Haiti.

Chlorine if raised to the level of 0.2ppm in drinking water, is still safe. If then it was 20 times the level, hyper chlorinated at swimming pool levels at 2ppm, as long as you don't drink swimming pool water, sure ye should be okay. If 2ppm was bad to swim in, sure no one would ?

What about a shock dose superchlorination at 20ppm ? Still survivable okay. Why ? Well think about 200ppm, shocking strong, or 2000ppm, or 10,000ppm, these are all levels below the strength of babies Milton Fluid which is about 1.3% by concentration, or 13,000ppm.

Without Milton Fluid babies could contract a higher level of germs on a whole range of surfaces, so its 13,000ppm strength is re-assuring and many mothers come to swear by this mild bleach and rather a baby drank (and survived) that than neat household bleach at 50,000ppm strength or just over 5%.

So 0.1ppm chlorine (or sodium hypochlorite) found in drinking water, is it safer that swimming pool water at 2ppm, yes. Safer than Milton Fluid at 13,000ppm or household bleach at 50,000ppm, yes. It is like daily ingestion of cream cakes on an escalating level.

Is 1/10th of a cream cake or 0.1 cream cake poisonous to human health ? Probably not. Is twenty times this level toxic, - say 2 cream cakes ? Surely not, maybe ye would get fat if ye carried on at that rate every day ? What about 13,000 cream cakes in one mad splurge, would ye be ill. Probably dead ?

Okay, agreed chlorine at 0.1ppm no harm in tap water, actually saves millions of lives. Chlorine at toxic levels - toxic. As Milton at 13,000ppm when used as to manufacturer's instructions, helps around the house. At super finite levels 0.1ppm, not toxic. (Or a million times less so than strong bleach.)


In our diets we require super finite levels of arsenic, and chromium. These are both super shocking deadly toxic carcinogenic poisonous elements. In higher levels of course. It is all about moderation and in trace levels these become nutrients for our bodies.


So what about fluoride in drinking water - is it at a level of a chemical poison at 10,000ppm that could do harm ? No it is tightly regulated at 0.6ppm to 0.8ppm. Is it toxic ? Only at high levels, but like Arsenic, and Chromium, Manganese and Copper, all heavy metals are toxic at certain levels, but safe at much lower levels.

If it was multiplied in strength like chlorine in swimming pool levels, and made to be 5 or 10 times the accepted strength, say over the 4ppm level, then slight aesthetic health issues could occur long term, but the Irish regulated levels have been the tightest set in Europe well below 1ppm and never exceeded. So to claim mad Irish scientists are trying to chemically poison people at 0.6 to 0.8ppm levels is a bit zippity doo dah whacky fruit loops, just like saying the same for 0.1ppm chlorine.

If chlorine gets to 2ppm in some water supplies as it can do at times, it is self regulating, as at that level it smells and tastes bad, so people don't drink it, and if flouride exceeded 2ppm in Irish water supplies there would be an uproar and riots on the streets, so it is unlikely that is not going to happen.

aah yes

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

lgk wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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.

lgk wrote: »

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.

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.

lgk wrote: »

Brita say to change the filters every two months, but unless you drink a lot, they will last a lot longer. If the Brita filter doesn't remove the taste for you, you might be best sticking with bottled water as many of the under sink options don't claim to remove any more chlorine than the Brita filters do. Argos do a 6 pack for €23.44, you'll get cheaper online, and even cheaper generic cartridges.

Most under sink units recommend an annual service to include filter replacements @ €100-140.

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.

aah yes

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

aah yes

cerastes wrote: »

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. I'd definitely consider it for cleaning rainwater though along with UV.

Missing minerals ?? the best RO's are covered ..

The big daddy of them all has to be the Aquaphor Morion on sale from €299 (DIY in the box), up to €199 top models / to €299 installed with on site cover. Mineral Plus+ options.





The Aquaphor Morion Irish modified (and Mineral option) RO can be described as the planet's ultimate domestic under sink filtration system by far.

Tipped as an ultra high level 12 stage in 4 stage system with cartridge inclusive deals to allow zero changes up to 5 years at €0 total filter costs. (Low cost 5 to 10 years)

The best Morion Ireland modified models include twin ultra high spec carbon pre-filters and twin ultra high spec membrane post filters, RO 100gpd + UF Mitsubishi Hollow Fibre Membrane - ultrafiltration 0.02 micron nominal. Only RO in the world to have all of these.

High level filtration at 100% chlorine removal, 100% colour, odour, taste removal, 100% heavy metal reduction, 100% bacteria / cyst reduction (absolute).
High level filtration at approximately 100% herbicides / pesticides, 100% fluoride, 100% pharmaceuticals, 100% THM trihalomethane. Plumbed in under sink.

Also removing excessive hard water scale by 95%, but leaving 5% calcium / magnesium from extremely hard water at 400 ppm total hardness (typical in the west of Ireland), allowing mineral values of around Volvic bottled water levels, - also adding mineral booster cartridge options for high mineral re-introduction of calcium, magnesium, potassium, etc (not needed for people who eat food) but optional for "peace of mind" and for people on low calcium or zero dairy, low mineral diets.

Also removes trace sodium 100ppm from softened water, or coastal wells with high sodium and chloride, and lake water or estuary waters with brackish water / sea water, in the 1000ppm to 10,000ppm salinity levels.

They use the lowest waste water ratio of any domestic tank RO system on the market half that of all others, zero electricity, half the size of most of the basic style "skeleton RO systems", the pre-filters last 2-3 years on mains water (even up to 5 years on some waters), and can take up to 10,000 ug/l of iron (other basic RO systems can only handle 1/100th to 1/10th of this).

The easiest to service RO system going allowing for half price DIY filter cartridge options, no expensive service callouts. Offers for first 5 years filters free or discounted with initial buying package.

So really, the Aquaphor RO is the most modern of its kind blowing the socks off the Chinese made skeleton type RO's from 1970's specifications, with no real improvements, Aquaphor are now the largest contenders in Europe above Brita (employee size wise), actually producing a good looking household appliance grade system than RO units that are essentially a collection of odd looking parts and separate tanks, with wires and tubes all over like a sack of spaghetti and bricks.

see video ...

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

gutteruu

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

cerastes

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.

aah yes

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

@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?

aah yes

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

aah yes wrote: »

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

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?

aah yes

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

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?

aah yes

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

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...

aah yes wrote: »

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

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. ...

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.

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.

aah yes wrote: »

(Brita 930 employees / Aquaphor 2100 employees.)

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?

aah yes

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.

lgk

aah yes wrote: »

You can't remove fluoride with a Brita jug.

Even better so given that more and more independent studies are debunking the health concerns! It removes the taste, that's all I want it for.

aah yes

The largest population study on the effects of fluoride has taken place involving billions of people since the middle of the last century.

Consequently, fluoridated water at target levels of 0.5mg/L to 1 mg/L has had no discernible impact on human health.

Except a beneficial one regarding dental care.

If fluoride was a killer, the concentration of 1,000 times the level found in toothpaste would have to be lowered or removed altogether ?

For 50 years or more since fluoride has been loaded into toothpaste at 1,000 times the level of tap water, it has only had positive press.


Elemental sodium as an intake in to our bodies combined with chloride at levels of 2,400 mg (sodium) per day (or one teaspoon [5,000 mg] of salt as sodium chloride) is seen as an RDA trace mineral we need to use to stay alive.

However, studies show that increased levels of up to 8,000 mg of salt or around 3,000 mg of sodium per day that the average population take in could be causing an extra 5,000 deaths per year in the UK alone.

Extrapolate that death figure across the whole planet, for a trace element our body needs at a level of 2,400 mg per day, and compare the beneficial entry level of 0.5 mg/L of fluoride recommended.

If say we drank a litre of tap water per day that would be 0.5 mg of fluoride taken daily, so then our normal sodium intake is 4,800 times more than fluoride, and this is proven good for us, yet fluoride protestors say the 0.5 mg is not ?

Scientists prove over the last 70 years or so that if you raise the 1 mg fluoride upper recommended level to four times the upper recommendation, then at 4 mg fluoride per day, some aesthetic issues could occur affecting say brown mottling on teeth, already studied thousands of times over a century.

But it only takes a good essential trace element such as sodium at 2,400 mg per day intake which we need to raise 30% over the normal daily intake level (not 4 times or 400%), to start causing 1,000's of death fatalities per year in the UK alone.

So fluoride at half a part per million - 1/2 ppm can offer a dental benefit, but is proven over 100 years of study on up to billions of people in the last 70 years to be safe as there are zero death extrapolations per country or for the planet as a whole at this level.

Raise fluoride to the level of the sodium we intake daily at 4,800 time the strength, well over the 1,000 times level found in toothpaste, lets say eat a few tubes of toothpaste, and then I think it is understandable you might want to go and see a doctor.


"Doctor, I have eaten 5 tubes of fluoride toothpaste"

"why"

"To prove fluoride is bad for you"

"Well, any self respecting anti-fluoride protestor could have told you that".

aah yes

to be exact our RDA of sodium chloride (per day) is 6 gram or 6,000 mg, and for every 1 gram over or 1,000 mg over and above our daily RDA, it is suggested 5,000 deaths a year in the UK alone are attributed to this 1 g difference

thebackbar

As a matter of interest how do these systems deal with cryptosporidium ?

aah yes

thebackbar wrote: »

As a matter of interest how do these systems deal with cryptosporidium ?

Filter systems with mechanical barrier filtration using pore sizes under 1 micron in size are very effective for Crypto removal.

Cryptosporidium cysts are around 2 to 3 microns in size, so sub-1micron filters are good at aiming for the 99.95% reduction level the health board aim for in bacterial contaminated waters.

Some filters are "nominal" pore size and do not offer super exact filtration at a given micron size, so it is worth ignoring say nominal 1 micron filters.

Some offer "absolute" filtration at a given pore size say 0.9 micron absolute, like Doulton Ceramic filter cartridges, again fairly good for Crypto removal.

With permeable or semi-permeable membranes like UF ultrafiltration hollow fibre membranes or RO reverse osmosis membranes you can get far better levels of filtration and even combine the two types of membrane to get even better.

So with an Aquaphor K7B cartridge which has both a 0.9 micron nominal bacteriostatic silver carbon block and a Mitsubishi UF 0.1 micron absolute hollow fibre membrane with nominal pore size of 0.02 microns, you are guaranteed to eliminate Crypto in the range of 99.9999% reduction.

With an RO or reverse osmosis membrane at 1/10,000th of 1 micron nominal reduction, along with an Aquaphor K7B cartridge, the Crypto reduction figures end up at 99.9999999999 and beyond, assuming there was enough crypto to put this removal level to the test.

In other words, normal levels of lake or stream Cryptosporidium would be removed by these filters at 100%, but instead of dozens of Cryptosporidium cysts if there were trillions of Cryptosporidium cysts in a small measure of water (billions of times the normal levels), ultimately an RO and UF filter combination would remove these levels of Crypto down to low single figures or even zero.

aah yes

... Trying to squeeze an unusually small Cryptosporidium cyst say as low as 1 micron, through the average pore of an RO membrane would be like trying to squeeze a 10 metre diameter hot air balloon through the eye of a needle.

... Trying to squeeze an unusually small Cryptosporidium cyst say as low as 1 micron, through the average pore of a UF membrane would be like trying to squeeze a 50mm diameter tangerine through the eye of a needle.

Calahonda52

Just read this thread and my brain is, well, flushed!

Just wonder what ppm hardness level one can aim for: i read somewhere that some rigs go from say 450 to 250 ppm so I wonder can u change the settings to get to a lower hardness level, yes with increased filtration and salt costs.

I want it, in part, to reduce cleaning of limescale on glass shower doors etc
450 to 250 might just have half the cleaning: she who must be obeyed would Not be impressed
Thanks

aah yes

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Just read this thread and my brain is, well, flushed!

Just wonder what ppm hardness level one can aim for: i read somewhere that some rigs go from say 450 to 250 ppm so I wonder can u change the settings to get to a lower hardness level, yes with increased filtration and salt costs.

I want it, in part, to reduce cleaning of limescale on glass shower doors etc
450 to 250 might just have half the cleaning: she who must be obeyed would Not be impressed
Thanks

Check out a few "Water Softener" threads and ye will be much further nearer the enlightened goal of hardness reduction to zero ppm.

Calahonda52

aah yes wrote: »

Check out a few "Water Softener" threads and ye will be much further nearer the enlightened goal of hardness reduction to zero ppm.

Am too busy listening to David Bowie music. What a genius. Beannacht De ar a anam!

To be honest I would have expected something a bit less Zen-like when I have spent a bit of time with with your colleague trying to spec the two systems we discussed recently via PM....

I saw 400 to 200 on your site so am trying to understand it: I have since got an answer from a competitor who explained it as being a function of the ability of the machine to deal with water of a particular hardness: in essence, the harder the water the more frequent the back wash and the more salt usage.
So in this case, looking at your stuff, if the initial hardness is above 400ppm he was quick to point out that the 10 * 24 will not be suitable.
The softened water will end up at about 50 ppm

aah yes

zeeegah pleeed geeetah, jammin good with weird and geeeelah ... and the spiders from mars

top man Bowie, god rest his soul


okay setting the water hardness on a Clack valve ...


Pushing through the marked square buttons

So many others yer eyeing, but press the next and arrow up

News had just came over

We had five years left ... on the warranty


.. sorry, Bowie's lyrics are taking over !


try again, okay if the hardness is over 400 ppm then a 10x24 Clack metered system would be exceptionally fine, up to 50 people


.. don't let all the fat skinny people, and all the tall-short people tell you any different

or the nobody people, and all the somebody people

I never thought you'd need so many people ... give different opinions on setting a Clack


... Bowie is at it again ! okay give it a bit more Bowie then back to setting the unit ...


I think I saw you in an ice-cream parlour
drinking milk shakes cold and long
Smiling and waving and looking so fine
don't think you knew you were in this song

And it was cold and it rained so I felt like an actor
And I thought of Ma and I wanted to get back there
Your face, your ace, the way that you talk
I kiss you, you're beautiful, I want you to walk

We've got five years, stuck on my eyes
We've got five years, what a surprise
We've got five years, my brain hurts a lot
We've got five years, that's all we've got

the end


Right the Clack ...

Get a water softener test kit, €1 kit will do, and test water after regeneration, - should be zero ppm hardness.

Adjusting whether 400 or 200 wont differ from zero hardness after, just may break through hard earlier if set too low.


Here am I floating
round my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do ...


Yes there is, ... get on the blower to any top Clack wizard to sort ye oot ....


Paul - 087 333 0333

Hugh - 087 997 4019

Mick - 087 975 1255

Padraig - 086 794 2937

David - 087 711 9514

Donal - 086 246 6726

mckildare

Some great reading in these threads! What kind of price are we talking to get a small Clack unit and the Aquaphor Morion installed? Do they come with extra salt or filters typically when buying?

aah yes

probably from €1000

possibly another €100 for salt and filters to 2020 if you get a good bundle deal ?

studdlymurphy

Natures water in dundalk. They will fit a 3 stage filter for 100ish. Look them up. I got a water filter and a softener from them and I am very happy. Not sure if they will cover dublin but worth asking.

mickomatic

I've been using Simply Water for about 10 years without issue.
I have a secondary tap for filtered water and 2 filters, one is for flouride. I just make sure I buy flouride toothpaste.
I change the filters once a year and it costs me about EUR100.
Sometimes the flow slows a bit when it's getting near time to change but I usually just live with it and change it the same month each year.
The tap has lasted 10 years without issue and I install it all myself.
Simply Water send me a reminder once per year and there is no heavy sales tactics for anything.

mckildare

Does anyone know where I might bags of the Axal Pro Salt in North Dublin area? The closest place I can find online is Athboy but they sell a minimum of 20 bags and my storage options aren't so vast!

P.s thanks aah yes for that list of names. Padraig installed my Clack and Aquaphor and I'm 100% happy with it. Lovely fella to deal with also

Rataan

Padraig also installed my filter and water softener.  He told me to use Axal Pro and said you could get it in Galvin's Hardware on Swords Main Street.  I went to Galvin's but they no longer stock Axal Pro.  I can't remember the name of the brand that they currently stock, but they assured me that it is of the same quality.

mckildare

Thanks Rataan, there's a place in Lusk or Balbriggan but Padraig never told me the name. All he said was don't get anything other than Axal Pro But then he said that the cubes have to be the large sized version so maybe he was referring to that and just not to get table salt size granule stuff. Do Galvins stock the large cubed stuff?

Rataan

I don't remember him telling me NOT to use anything other than Axal Pro, I think he just said it was the best stuff to use.  He did say not to use the salt from Woodies, which is the smaller sized stuff.
Yes, the salt that I get in Galvin's is the large cubed stuff.
There is an agricultural store at Blakes Cross (maybe that was who he was referring to in Lusk?) called N.A.D.  They sell bags of salt.  You could give them a call to see if they stock Axal.

mckildare

Yeah that's actually what he said alright, don't use the small stuff but anything like Axal Pro is fine. Thanks for the help, I'll give the Lusk crowd a call and compare the prices to Galvins stuff.