waterfiltergurus

[waterfiltergurus]

We conducted an extensive hands-on assessment of the SimPure Y7P to evaluate its performance across a range of testing categories. We used the system in our own home to analyze its ability to purify our treated, shared well water in Colorado, as well as its ease of setup and maintenance, design quality, filtration speed, and company policies. Overall Score: 8.10 How We Test & Score 8.23 Contaminant Reduction 8.50 Design 8.50 Maintenance 7.00 Filtration Rate 7.00 Setup 8.20 Company What We Like Greatly reduced or removed all contaminants in our water Easy setup due to plug-and-play design Excellent 4:1 pure-to-wastewater ratio Smart display screen with filter replacement & water shortage reminders Efficient performance reduces water waste What We Don’t Like Flushing the system is a time-consuming hassle Has a cheap plastic cup holder & some flimsy design elements Small internal pure water tank fills quickly Slow filtering Purified water had acidic pH & no remineralization upgrade Not certified for contaminant reduction (despite misleading claims) Price$369.99Contaminants Reduced1,000+CertificationsNSF 58 (Materials Requirements Only)ProcessMechanical + Carbon + ROFilter Capacity528 gallonsAnnual Cost~$114Warranty1 year 📊 Scoring Data At Water Filter Guru, we use the same key performance criteria to test all the water filters we review. This involves scoring a filter across 6 different factors that impact their ease of use, convenience, and the quality of their water purification. Using our data tracking system, we can easily compare our results to all other filters we’ve tested so far. When testing the SimPure Y7P system, we specifically looked at how it matched up to other countertop RO systems.  You can see how this system ranks in the following table: CriteriaResultsOverall Score8.10Health Related Contaminants8.40Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot CertifiedFiltration Rate0.05 GPMComponent QualityBelow AverageComponent CertificationExceptionalSetupWeakServicing RequirementsWeakCosts$0.10/ gallonWarranty Length1 yearShippingFree shipping to continental US ReturnsOnly available for certain conditions - No trial period/ guarantee 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 8.23 SimPure currently sells 8 different countertop RO system models. We chose the SimPure Y7P unit to test as it’s the most popular system currently available, and was the most requested for us to review.  To evaluate the system’s contaminant reduction performance, we conducted our own SimpleLab water testing and combined this data with evidence of (or a lack of) a performance certification.  Our Performance Testing Score: 8.48 Starting with our performance testing, we first needed to learn about our water quality before purification.  We used a SimpleLab Tap Score kit to take a sample of water directly from our kitchen faucet, which we shipped to the lab for testing. We choose Tap Score for all our water testing projects because we’ve found that its test reports are the most comprehensive and simple to interpret, with handy interactive elements that help us easily understand our water quality. More on Tap Score Test Data: When you open a Tap Score report, you can choose to interpret your results against the EPA MCL or Tap Score’s own HGL (Health Guideline Level). While MCLs are the legal requirement for public water quality in the US, we compared our results to Tap Score’s stricter, human-health-focused benchmark for this review. Health-Related Contaminants Score: 8.40 Health-related contaminants are those that have known human health effects. Some common health-harmful impurities in tap water include pesticides, heavy metals, disinfection byproducts, radionuclides, PFAS, and pharmaceuticals. 8 contaminants with potential health effects were detected in our water, and 2 of these—fluoride and uranium—were present in concentrations exceeding the Tap Score HGL:  - 1.2 PPM of fluoride, exceeding the HGL of 0.8 PPM  - 0.0099 PPM of uranium, exceeding the HGL of 0 PPM Contaminants detected below the HGL included nitrate, strontium, barium, and molybdenum. You can see the complete list of contaminants and their concentrations in the table below. So, did the SimPure Y7P system effectively remove these contaminants? We conducted a second Tap Score test on water purified from the system to find out—and our results were pretty great. Fluoride and uranium were both completely eliminated. Our purified water was also free from barium, copper, strontium, and sulfate, and the system greatly reduced nitrate by 78%. This was the exact performance we’d expect from a reverse osmosis system—RO is one of the most effective water purification methods designed to target a broad range of contaminants.  Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 Aesthetic contaminants affect water’s taste, smell, and appearance, and in city water or treated well water, there’s only usually one aesthetic contaminant present: chlorine. This chemical is widely used to disinfect water and can give it a mild “swimming pool” taste and odor.  We tested for chlorine ourselves using the included test strips in our tests. This gave us more accurate results than a lab test, as chlorine is highly volatile and dissipates from water quickly. Around 1 PPM of chlorine was initially detected. Post filtration, this had been eliminated entirely—likely captured in the media in the Y7P’s carbon filter.  Minerals, Salts, & PH The pH and presence of minerals in our purified water don’t currently influence the contaminant reduction scores we assign to an RO system. But given that reverse osmosis is known to influence these water quality parameters, we usually discuss them in our reviews.  Our unfiltered water contained trace levels of magnesium, calcium, and sodium. Post-filtration, these had all been reduced significantly:  - Magnesium by 95%, from 6.07 PPM to 0.28 PPM - Calcium by 94%, from 25.3 PPM to 1.4 PPM - Sodium by 73%, from 9.91 PPM to 2.64 PPM  The reduction of these minerals also influenced the pH of our water, which dropped from 7.1 (just above neutral) to 6.3 (slightly acidic). This was expected given that the minerals that had been reduced contribute to alkalinity. Is this a problem? Not necessarily. Our water still tasted fine, and the lack of minerals shouldn’t be an issue if your diet is healthy and varied. But water with a low pH is more likely to leach metals, and these metals tend to be more toxic. So if you’re going to store your RO water before drinking, put it in a glass container.   The Y7P doesn’t come with a remineralization upgrade, so there’s no way to re-introduce minerals into the water in a treatment stage. SimPure has recently released the YT7-BW-A, which does have an alkaline post-filter and is worth considering if you want to raise your purified water’s pH.  Otherwise, you could stick with the YP7 and remineralize your water using another method.  Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 As a reverse osmosis system, the SimPure YP7 should reduce or remove dozens of other contaminants that weren’t detected in our test water, including PFAS, other heavy metals, chloramine, pesticides, nitrate, and bacteria.  We can only personally test a filter’s ability to reduce the contaminants our water contains. Because of that, we also look for performance certifications as proof that a system can target a broader range of impurities that other folks might be concerned about.  The YP7 has not yet been certified by any of the three testing and certification organizations: the NSF, IAPMO, or the WQA.  SimPure misleadingly claims that the system has been “SGS tested and certified”, making us believe that SGS is a reputable certification body - it isn’t, they provide testing, not certification. Since the YP7 isn’t certified, we’re instead going to compare our test results against the SGS testing data. The report noted that the system removed 97.28% fluoride, 96.26% nitrate, and 99.5% copper, which corresponded with our own test results, although nitrate reduction was slightly lower (78%). SGS also tested the system to reduce lead, arsenic, total coliforms, and other contaminants. They weren’t detected in our water, so we can’t offer a comparison for these particular impurities. The YP7’s lack of official certifications is disappointing, especially since other similar countertop RO systems have been certified to reduce at least a few contaminants. 🚦Filtration Rate Score: 7.00 Like most free-standing countertop RO systems, the SimPure YP7 system has a fairly slow water filtration rate.  In our testing, it took 7 minutes and 15 seconds to filter enough water to fill the internal pure water tank (which holds 0.4 gallons of water).  This equated to a filtration rate of 0.05 GPM. The pure water tank is smaller than the unfiltered water tank—from full, the unfiltered water tank fills the pure water tank three times. The other countertop RO systems we tested had filtration rates ranging from 0.03 to 0.1 GPM, so the YP7’s water production rate is on the slower end of a fairly slow bunch.  Efficiency Ratio Wastewater production is a side effect of the reverse osmosis process, but the good news is that modern countertop RO systems like the Simpure Y7P are designed to minimize water waste as much as possible.  The Y7P uses something called Recycling Multi Filtration Technology, which means it circulates the wastewater back into the feed tank to continuously circulate it through the filters until the inlet tank is nearly empty. Filtering water repeatedly through the system means that the maximum volume of water is purified, limiting how much is wasted.  As a result, the system is highly efficient, with a pure-to-wastewater ratio of 4:1. That means only 1 gallon of water is wasted for every 4 gallons purified, the exact opposite of the conventional under-sink system’s 1:4 efficiency ratio. Other countertop RO units have recovery rates ranging from 2:1 to 4:1, putting the SimPure YP7 among the best in this category.  📐 Design Score: 8.50 The SimPure YP7 has the standard design that we’ve come to expect from a countertop reverse osmosis system.  It consists of a main unit that contains the filtration cartridges and water storage tanks (accessible via a panel at the back) and a dispenser spout and cupholder for dispensing purified water into a glass of your choice. The system requires electricity to power a pump, sending water through the filters and eliminating the need for connection to a water line.  In terms of its appearance and functionality, we found the system similar to Waterdrop N1, another countertop RO system that’s currently around $150 cheaper.  We awarded the Y7P’s overall design score by combining scores from our design quality analysis and the system’s design certifications (or lack of). Component Quality Score: 7.50 We were a bit disappointed with the quality of this SimPure RO model. The system is primarily made from plastic and BPA-free food-grade material. The tanks, including the purified water tank, are made from plastic—something to keep in mind if you’re trying to limit your plastics exposure. Note: See our reviews for the AquaTru Carafe or the BlueVua ROPOT if so, which both collect water in glass jugs.   While the Y7P’s design feels sturdy enough, it had a few issues that brought its score down in this category. First, we found that having a small volume pure water tank was a hassle because we’d have to dispense all the water from it every time it got full if we wanted to purify all the water from the unfiltered water tank.  Plus, the unit beeps for around 20 seconds to let you know when there’s a shortage of pure water, as well as when you remove the unfiltered water tank to fill it up. While some folks may find this useful, we found it annoying.  Once you’ve got the unit up and running, you can dispense water into a cup of your choice. We noted that the cupholder that goes under the dispenser spout is made from cheap plastic and doesn’t feel like it’ll withstand much wear and tear.  And finally, we found that the lid that covers the unfiltered water tank slips down, meaning it gets in your way when you’re trying to install the tank after filling it up.  Little design issues like these might not make a huge impact on the system’s overall value but would have been so easy to address in the manufacturer’s initial prototype testing.  Filter Design We mentioned that the SimPure Y7P has a similar design to the Waterdrop N1, and these similarities extend to the filters used in each system. Both models use two filters: the Waterdrop N1 uses a PP cotton & carbon block filter and an RO membrane, and the SimPure Y7P uses a sediment PP membrane & pre-carbon filter and an RO membrane. We’re pretty certain that these filters are exactly the same but have been branded differently for each manufacturer.  In fact, we think multiple countertop RO systems, including the RKIN U1, the Bluevua ROPOT, and Waterdrop, are using very similar filters in their systems, which could be all sourced from the same manufacturer in China. That’s why it’s important to focus not just on the filtration process itself (which tends to be pretty similar across all RO systems anyway), but on additional features that might justify a system’s higher cost, such as: - Performance/design certifications - Additional treatment stages, like remineralization - Tech capabilities such as heating/cooling of purified water to a desired temperature - Features to limit wastewater production - Design elements that minimize contact between purified water & plastic parts Along with its filters, the Y7P also has a UV light, which is capable of “disinfecting and treating 99.99% of viruses, germs, e-coli, and coliform bacteria”. We appreciated the addition of UV but can’t corroborate these claims as we only filtered treated, potable water that did not have microorganisms detected pre-filtraiton. Certification Score: 6.00 Although it doesn’t have any performance certifications, the Y7P does have a design certification: it’s certified for materials requirements only under Standard 58 by the NSF. This begs the question: why didn’t SimPure apply for a performance certification as well? NSF 58 is the performance standard for RO systems and can be used to validate a manufacturer’s claims to reduce many contaminants, from fluoride to PFAS to lead.  If SimPure went to the effort to obtain a design certification under this standard, why didn’t it also get performance certified—especially when this is arguably the certification that customers care about more? Was it a financial decision? Or did the company believe that certifications weren’t achievable? We can only speculate.  Regardless of the reason, it’s good to see that the system is at least certified for conforming to material requirements.  ⚙️ Setup Score: 7.00 The initial setup process for the SimPure Y7P couldn’t be easier, but its score was affected in this category due to its time-consuming filter flushing process.  As a plug-and-play system with pre-fitted filters, the Y7P doesn’t need to be installed at your plumbing. We simply placed it onto our kitchen countertop and plugged it into a power outlet.  There were a few basic assembly requirements, including: - Unboxing the unit - Attaching the drip tray - Removing and filling the unfiltered water tank …And at this point, the setup process became a lot more time-consuming.  Following the instructions in the user manual, we flushed the filters to prime them ready for use. This didn’t just take a few minutes—it’s a process that lasts up to 2 hours.  The main reason for this is the small size of the internal pure water tank compared to the unfiltered water tank. We had to wait for the pure water tank to be filled, then manually flush it. Then we had to wait for it to fill again, then manually flush it. This was repeated again and again until the unfiltered water tank was emptied and needed to be refilled. It took us just under 30 minutes to complete the process to flush one full unfiltered water tank, and SimPure recommends repeating this 3-5 times before you can drink water from the system. Not good. 🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.75 We evaluated the SimPure Y7P in the maintenance category by analyzing its servicing requirements and the ongoing filter replacement cost.  Servicing Requirements 7.00 The Y7P’s servicing requirements were simple, but we had to repeat the same time-consuming flushing process every time we replaced the filters.   There’s a filter indicator light on the display that illuminates for each filter when a replacement is needed, which is a handy feature that prevents the need to make your own calendar reminders.  We haven’t had to replace any of the filters yet, but the process outlined in the user manual is straightforward: open the access panel, remove the unfiltered water tank, lift and turn the old filter to remove it, then insert the new cartridge in its place. Aside from replacing the filters, we also cleaned the water tanks every week in warm, soapy water. The user manual outlines how to descale the system, which is recommended for every 2 weeks to 6 months depending on the TDS reading of your unfiltered water.  Costs Score: 10.00 We calculated the ongoing spend for the SimPure Y7P by adding together the costs-per-gallon of each filter in the system. The system’s overall maintenance cost is $0.10/gallon: This cost will vary for each user depending on your water usage and quality, but it’s a good benchmark and allows us to easily compare it to other systems. It’s one of the most affordable RO systems we’ve tested, but all countertop models we’ve reviewed so far have been very affordable. 🏢 Company Score: 8.20 Finally, we looked at SimPure’s company offerings, including its warranty, shipping, and returns policy. Warranty Score: 8.50 SimPure offers a 1-year limited warranty for all products purchased on the manufacturer’s website. The warranty covers any defects in material or workmanship under normal use throughout the warranty period. Under the warranty, you’ll be eligible to receive a replacement part or product, or get your product repaired by SimPure, for free.  There are a few terms and conditions to be aware of: the warranty doesn’t cover damage caused by improper use, unauthorized modification, fire, and other scenarios not related to normal use.  You can find information on SimPure’s warranty policy here. Shipping  Score: 9.50 All SimPure products are sold with free shipping to customers in the continental US.  Alaska, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and several other regions aren’t eligible for the free shipping offer. If you’re getting a product shipped to one of these regions, you’ll need to pay a remote area fee, which depends on the weight and size of the product. View the shipping policy here. Returns Score: 6.50 We were disappointed with the returns policy offered by SimPure. You can only return a product under certain conditions, and there’s no trial period or guarantee. SimPure allows customers to return products for an exchange or refund in the case of manufacturing defects, damage in transit (but only if you discover this in the presence of the couriers), or the product not matching with the original description. Every other countertop RO system we’ve tested has had a 30-day guarantee, so SimPure falls behind in this category. Find more information on the refund policy here.  💰 Value For Money Rounding up this review, we’re going to end with our evaluation of the SimPure Y7P’s overall value for money.  There are plenty of things to like about this system: it’s pre-assembled and suitable for rentals, and in our testing, it performed impressively, removing the majority of contaminants in our water. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

The Boroux Legacy and Big Berkey stainless steel countertop water filters look almost exactly the same, but what’s going on beneath the surface? Boroux has been designed with a number of improvements to make it better than Berkey and similar products (according to the manufacturer)—but how did Boroux vs Berkey match up in a real-world testing situation? Overall Score: 7.96 Boroux Best For: Anyone who wants to avoid some of Berkey’s design issues, including the plastic spigot and poor seals around the spigot & between chambers People looking for the reassurance of an official certification for lead-free design (NOT contaminant removal) Overall Score: 8.02 Berkey Best For: Folks who want to remove fluoride and arsenic (something Boroux doesn’t currently do) Anyone who wants the choice of 6+ different vessel sizes (Boroux offers just 2) In this review, we’re going to be specifically comparing the 2.25-gallon Big Berkey, with two Black Berkey elements and two PF2 Fluoride filters, and the 3-gallon Boroux Legacy, with two Boroux Foundation filters. Both did well at reducing most contaminants in our water, but both also had their specific issues: Berkey with aluminum oxide leaching and Boroux with cobalt leaching (Boroux also didn’t remove fluoride). While Boroux has a lot of design improvements compared to Berkey, it still has design shortcomings, including the extremely lengthy filter priming process that we dislike so much about Berkey.  🏭 The Manufacturer: Clearbrook Before we get into our testing data, we want to share what we’ve learned about the manufacturer of Berkey and Boroux systems (yes, they share the same!): Clearbrook.  Clearbrook is a manufacturer specializing in gravity-fed water filter cartridges, including, most notably, the Black Berkey elements. After the EPA issued Berkey several Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders due to a compliance issue with a federal law, Clearbrook collaborated with​ James Enterprise Inc. (JEI), which had historically operated as a distributor for Berkey water filter systems through BerkeyFilters.com.  In this collaboration, JEI and Clearbrook created EPA-compliant filters, leading to the development of the Boroux Foundation filter. The Boroux brand was also designed to “improve functionality”, addressing many of the issues that customers had experienced with Berkey.  📊 Our Testing Data We tested and ranked the Boroux Legacy and Big Berkey systems using 6 main criteria. You can see the scores each system obtained across all these criteria in the next table. FactorBorouxBerkeyContaminant Reduction7.808.25Filtration Rate7.507.50Design10.007.80Setup6.506.50Maintenance8.508.50Company9.409.10 For a more in-depth look at the testing data from each test we conducted, see the table below. FactorBorouxBerkeyWinnerOverall Score7.968.02BerkeyHealth Related Contaminants7.808.60BerkeyAesthetic Related Contaminants9.906.70BorouxPerformance CertificationNoneNoneTieFiltration Rate0.75 GPH0.75 GPHTieComponent QualityExceptionalExcellentBorouxComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI/CAN 372noneBorouxSetupFailingFailingTieServicing RequirementsWeakWeakTieCosts$0.011/ gal$0.13/ galBorouxWarranty LengthSystem: LifetimeFilters: 1 yearLifetimeBerkeyShippingFree shipping on orders over $60Free shipping on orders over $99 to the lower 48 statesBorouxReturns60 days30 daysBoroux 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Starting with our testing priority: contaminant reduction. In this category, we tested Boroux and Berkey and compared their ability to reduce unwanted impurities and improve our water quality.  The overall scores awarded to the systems were also influenced by whether or not they were performance-certified for contaminant removal.  The Products We Tested - We tested Berkey with two Black Berkey elements and two PF-2 fluoride filters.  - We tested the Boroux Legacy with two Boroux Foundation filters (the company doesn’t currently sell separate fluoride filters).   Our Lab Test Results We used the same process to test Boroux and Berkey for removing contaminants from our water:  - First, we filled a bucket with water from our faucet and mixed it thoroughly to ensure contaminants were equally distributed.  - We then used the water to fill the Boroux and Berkey vessels, and took a sample of unfiltered water directly from the bucket.  - After waiting for the water to be filtered, we took a sample of filtered water from each of the water filtration systems.  What else should you know?  - Both tests were conducted with the same treated, shared well water, although on separate occasions. - Berkey was actually tested twice (more on why we did that later). - We then tested Boroux several months later.  - We used the same laboratory testing package offered by SimpleLab Tap Score for each of our tests.  - Before both Berkey tests and our Boroux test, we filtered 50 gallons of water through the filters. We’ve listed the contaminants detected in our source water and the % of contaminants removed by Berkey and Boroux in the table below. The systems received similar scores for contaminant reduction, but Berkey’s ability to address fluoride with its PF2 filters gave it the highest score overall.  Health-Related Contaminants Berkey got the higher score (8.60) for removing health-related contaminants compared to Boroux, which received a score of 7.80 Our Boroux Results Starting with the Boroux Foundation filters, our unfiltered water test detected 10 contaminants with possible health effects.  Uranium, chloroform, copper, and fluoride were all present in concentrations above the lab’s Health Guideline Level. Nitrate, barium, molybdenum, strontium, sulfate, and chloride were also detected below the HGL.  Post-filtration, chloroform, copper, molybdenum, and uranium were removed completely, while strontium was reduced by 79%, nitrate by 71%, sulfate by 61%, and chloride by just under 9%.  There were just a couple of outcomes that we were disappointed with:  - Fluoride was only reduced by 11%. When we reviewed the Boroux system in June 2024, the manufacturer told us that they were in the process of designing a fluoride filter to be released soon, but nothing has changed since then (although the website still claims: “Our new fluoride filter coming soon!”) - 6.9 µg/L of cobalt appeared in our filtered water, most likely leached from the filter media. While it was a very small amount, it still exceeded the HGL of 2 µg/L by 240%.  How Berkey Compared We conducted testing twice for Berkey because of an issue we experienced in our first test.  In test 1, 11 contaminants with potential health effects were detected in our unfiltered water: chloroform, bromodichloromethane, cobalt, and lead (all detected in concentrations higher than the HGL), as well as copper, fluoride, strontium, sulfate, barium, manganese, and sodium.  Berkey reduced 100% lead, disinfection byproducts, copper, barium, and manganese, and reduced cobalt by 3.23%. But Berkey’s fluoride filters only reduced 50% fluoride, and 1.4 PPM of aluminum (almost three times the Tap Score HGL) was detected in our water—we suspected this was activated alumina leaching from the PF-2 fluoride filters.  So, we bought a new set of fluoride filters and tested our water quality again, this time making sure to follow the (very specific) priming and installation instructions very carefully. This time, 100% fluoride was reduced, and only 0.069 PPM of aluminum was detected in our filtered water. In this second test, potassium and sodium increased substantially in our post-filtered water, most likely from the water we used to prime the filters, which had higher concentrations of these contaminants. This was an anomaly we noticed with a number of countertop filters that we tested at the same time.  Our verdict? Berkey got the higher score because it removed fluoride, but that’s not to say we think the PF-2 filters are perfect. They’re made of plastic, and the fact that they so easily leached activated alumina into our water concerns us. Plus, they sit in the lower chamber in the filtered water all the time...  When Boroux told us they were designing separate fluoride filters, we advised them to add fluoride removal media into the main Foundation filters to avoid the issues Berkey has with the separate PF-2 filters. Aesthetic Contaminants Boroux and Berkey both removed 100% chlorine (the only aesthetic contaminant detected in our unfiltered water). But Boroux got the higher score of 9.90, compared to Berkey’s score of 6.70.  Berkey’s aesthetic score was an average of test 1 and test 2, and had been pulled down by the extremely elevated aluminum levels in our test 1 filtered water. This increased the water’s pH to 8.7, with possible aesthetic effects.  Certifications Since neither Berkey nor Boroux has obtained an official performance certification, both received the lowest score of 6.00 in this category. Both filters have been independently tested, but we’d much prefer the reassurance of an official performance certification from the NSF, WQA, or IAPMO.  When we initially tested and reviewed Boroux in June 2024, the manufacturer told us that they were in the process of obtaining certifications through the WQA to NSF/ANSI 42 for Particulate Reduction and NSF/ANSI 401 for Microplastics (the filter currently only has third-party testing done by IAPMO).  No updates so far. The WQA certification process can take “weeks to months”, so it’s possible that this process is still ongoing. But it’s also possible that Boroux pulled out of testing, was unable to receive certifications, or didn’t actually apply for any performance certifications in the first place.  🚦Filtration Rate As gravity-fed systems, Boroux and Berkey’s filtration rates are measured in gallons per hour (GPH). For both filters, we timed how long they took to filter a batch of water to determine their speed of filtration.   You can compare their filtration times and flow rates in the table below. ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateBoroux7.500.75 GPHBerkey7.500.75 GPH Both were slower than many similar systems we’ve tested, with a filtration rate of 0.75 GPH: Berkey using the two black filters and two fluoride filters, and Boroux using the two Boroux Foundation filters. 💲 Upfront Cost Given that Berkey and Boroux are made by the same manufacturer, we were unsurprised by the fact that they have virtually identical costs:  - The 2.25-gallon Big Berkey, including two Black Berkey filters, costs $367.  -  The 3-gallon Boroux Legacy, including two Boroux Foundation filters, costs $359. You’re technically getting better for money from Boroux, as the larger vessel holds more water. But you could probably find the Big Berkey at a lower price if you shopped around (Berkey filters are sold by different distributors, and we took our pricing information from BigBerkeyWaterFilters.com). 📐 Design The design category is where we really have a lot to talk about, since one of the main intentions of the Boroux Legacy was to eradicate a lot of the design issues with Berkey. Did it achieve that? Kind of—but not all of the issue we experienced with Berkey were addressed.  Boroux Legacy Big Berkey You can check out the scores obtained by the systems in the table below. ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyBoroux10.00ExceptionalNSF 372 Berkey7.80Below AverageNot Certified Filter Models Starting with the countertop models you can buy from Berkey and Boroux.  Boroux currently sells just two unit size variations, both with the same stainless steel finish (available in polished silver, black, or white) for the Boroux Legacy: - The larger 3-gallon Boroux Legacy unit - The smaller 1.8-gallon Boroux Legacy Compact Berkey’s gravity water filtration system range is more extensive, with 6 water-holding capacity options to choose from:  - The Travel Berkey (1.5 gallons) - The Big Berkey (2.25 gallons) - The Royal Berkey (3.25 gallons) - The Imperial Berkey (4.5 gallons) - The Crown Berkey (6 gallons) - The Berkey Light (2.75 gallons) All the Berkey countertop water filters are made from stainless steel apart from the Berkey Light, which is made from BPA-free plastic.  So, Berkey has more size offerings, but Boroux is one of the only brands we’ve come across that offers vessel colors aside from silver.  Component Quality  The Boroux Legacy and Big Berkey systems look almost identical, but Boroux got the higher component quality score of 10.00 (versus Berkey’s 9.00).  Both units are made from stainless steel, which shouldn’t rust or corrode. But only a few of the Legacy’s components (such as the brackets of the filter elements) are made of plastic. Boroux spigot and hole plugs Berkey plastic spigot The Big Berkey uses plastic in quite a lot of its design, including the fluoride filters and spigot. That’s what pulled Berkey’s score down here.   Boroux also has a rubber base around the spigot, preventing leaks from the seal, as well as a domed upper chamber, so the bottom of the filters don’t sit in the water once it stops filtering. Plus, the upper chamber fits into the lower chamber tightly, preventing water leaking out from between the two. We experienced all three of these issues with Berkey, so it’s good to see them addressed in the Boroux design. But despite Boroux including a few upgrades, both units still have design issues that can make them quite annoying to use.  First, filling the large vessels with water from your sink is difficult and time-consuming—unless you have a deep sink or a pull-out spray faucet, you’ll probably have to fill them with a separate pitcher.  A specific issue we noticed with Boroux is that the lid doesn’t have a handle, so when it’s flipped, it can actually hit and cut off part of the top of the filter elements.  Filter Materials Moving on to the design of the filter elements themselves, this is where Boroux and Berkey’s offerings are pretty similar (unsurprising given that they’re made by the same manufacturer).  Boroux sells just one filter:  - The Boroux Foundation filter, containing activated carbon and silver (no other filter materials are disclosed by Boroux). Berkey sells two filters:  - The Black Berkey element, made from activated carbon, an ion exchange resin, and four additional undisclosed media. - The separate PF-2 fluoride filter, made from activated alumina.  Black Berkey filter Berkey PF2 filter You can use Berkey units with or without the fluoride filters, while Boroux doesn’t currently sell a separate filter purely for fluoride reduction purposes.   Materials Safety Certification Boroux got the higher score in this category because it’s the only filter to have an NSF 372 certification (obtained through the WQA) for lead-free design.  Berkey hasn’t obtained a materials safety certification, nor does it have a lead-free design certification.  ⚙️ Setup We compared the Boroux and Berkey systems for setup by evaluating their ease of assembly, especially fousing on filter priming, and timing how long these processes took.  We’ve shared our setup times and scores in the table below. ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeBoroux6.501 hour 20 minutesBerkey6.501 hour 20 minutes Both filters had the exact same frustrating filter priming process, which dragged their setup scores down to 6.50. We were extremely disappointed that Boroux hadn’t fixed this priming issue, since it’s hands-down the most annoying thing about the Black Berkey filters.  If you don’t have a compatible faucet for the blue filter priming tool, you may have to use the included tan priming washers, which is honestly the worst filter priming process we’ve tested to date. Priming the filters for both units took us over an hour each time, which is completely unnecessary when some competitors sell filters that are shipped pre-primed.  🔧 Maintenance There were two maintenance sub-categories that we used to score and compare Boroux and Berkey in this category: their servicing requirements and ongoing filter costs.  See the scores we awarded to both systems in the next table.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsBoroux8.50Weak$0.011/ galBerkey8.50Weak$0.130/ gal Both systems are affordable to maintain, but their overall scores were pulled down to 8.50 because their replacement filters also require the same time-consuming priming process. Servicing Requirements  Because the Boroux Legacy and Big Berkey are standalone countertop filters, they’re nice and easy to maintain.  When you need to clean out the water chambers, you can disassemble the units and wash the separate components in your sink, with none of the hassle you’d have with a system connected to your water line. That said, if your kitchen sink is small, you might struggle to fit the water chambers inside. The actual process of replacing the filters is easy, too: you just unscrew the old filters and screw the replacements filters onto the base of the top chamber. But—and this is a big but—you can’t do this without priming them first.  And that’s why both systems only received a 7.00 score for their servicing requirements: each new filter you get needs to be primed using the same tedious process that we outlined earlier.  In terms of filter replacement frequency, Boroux claims a lifespan of 6,000 gallons per filter, while Berkey’s main filters can reportedly last over 10 years, or 6,000 gallons per pair, and the PF-2 filters last around 6 months on average. We think both of these filter lifespan claims seem extremely overexaggerated, and, since both units use carbon media in their filters, we wouldn’t recommend using them for years on end due to the likelihood of bacteria growth inside this media. Berkey recommends cleaning the filters with an abrasive scouring pad every 12 months or whenever you notice a reduced filtration speed, while Boroux recommends that you scrub the surface of the filters every 3-6 months. Maintenance Costs Both Boroux and Berkey are affordable to maintain, awarding them scores of 10.00 in this category. Of course, we calculated these costs based on Berkey and Boroux’s likely exaggerated lifespan claims, so their actual ongoing spends could be higher.  Here’s how the maintenance costs compare for Boroux and Berkey: That makes them pretty equally matched, although Berkey is technically the more affordable option, because the unit with just the Black Berkey filters is cheaper than the Boroux unit with two Foundation filters.   But, that’s assuming that both systems really do have a high water filtering capacity as claimed. So far, we haven’t used either of these systems long enough to validate their filter lifespan claims.   🏢 Company Our last point of comparison was Berkey and Boroux’s company policies, including their warranty, shipping, and returns offerings.  The table below shows how each brand scored across these subcategories.  ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsBoroux9.40System: LifetimeFilters: 1 yearFree shipping on all orders over $6060 daysBerkey9.10LifetimeFree shipping on orders over $99 to the lower 48 states30 days Interestingly, even though Boroux and Berkey are manufactured by the same company, there were some slight differences in their scores here. This is most likely because Berkey is sold by different third-party sellers (we’re evaluating BigBerkeyWaterFilters.com here), while Boroux is sold directly through the manufacturer’s own company.  Warranty Length  BigBerkeyWaterFilters.com and Boroux both offer a lifetime warranty for their systems, which protects against manufacturing defects (excluding damage or wear due to misuse, abuse, alteration, or failure to follow use instructions). BigBerkeyWaterFilters.com also warrants the Black Berkey elements for 2 years, but there are some stipulations:  Boroux only warrants the Foundation filters for a year against manufacturer defects. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

We tested the Bluevua ROPOT to find out how it performed when filtering our treated well water in Colorado. Our hands-on testing involved assessing the system’s ability to remove the contaminants detected in our water, determining its ease of setup and maintenance, and evaluating its design quality. Overall Score: 8.68 How We Test & Score 8.23 Contaminant Reduction 10.00 Design 9.75 Maintenance 7.50 Filtration Rate 10.00 Setup 8.65 Company What We Like Reduced or removed most impurities in our water High-quality design & certified to NSF 372 Quick, easy setup Water collects in a glass carafe Smart display monitors TDS in real time What We Don’t Like Not performance certified Didn’t completely remove fluoride Still wastes water (like all RO systems) despite being efficient Needs filling/emptying throughout the day Price$454.00Contaminants Reduced1000+CertificationsNot CertifiedProcessMechanical + Carbon + RO + UV + ReminFilter Capacity538 / 1,056 / 260 gallonsAnnual Cost~$169.86Warranty1 year 📊 Scoring Data At Water Filter Guru, we test all our filters across 6 different factors that impact their performance, ease of use, and value. We then take the results of that test and compare them to all other filters we’ve tested so far. When testing the Bluevua ROPOT system, we specifically focused on how the unit compares to other similar countertop RO systems.  Check out the full performance table below to see how this system ranks: CriteriaResultsOverall Score8.68Health Related Contaminants8.40Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot Certified Filtration Rate0.06 GPMComponent QualityExceptionalComponent CertificationNSF 372SetupExceptionalServicing RequirementsOutstandingCosts$0.27/ gallonWarranty Length1 yearShippingFree Shipping to continental USReturns30 days 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 8.23 Reverse osmosis is known as an effective water purification method, meaning that it greatly reduces or removes virtually all impurities from drinking water.  So in our contaminant reduction testing for the Bluevua ROPOT system, our expectations were high. We assessed the system with two water quality tests: one taken straight from our faucet, and one taken from the collection carafe post-filtration.  We also compared the manufacturer’s contaminant reduction claims (including their performance certification claims) with actual evidence from certifying organizations.   Our Performance Testing Score: 8.48 We follow the same testing procedure for all countertop RO systems, using a laboratory testing kit called SimpleLab Tap Score.  Tap Score’s comprehensive, interactive test reports provide information on our water quality in thorough detail.  Our testing process involves taking a sample of water straight from our faucet, and a separate sample from the RO system itself, then shipping them to the lab for analysis.   Good to Know: When you view your Tap Score report, you’ll have the option to evaluate your test results based on the legally enforced EPA MCL or Tap Score’s own HGL (Health Guideline Level). We chose Tap Score’s benchmark for the purpose of this review, since HGLs are stricter than the federal MCLs and prioritize human health. Health-Related Contaminants Score: 8.40 Our Tap Score test detected 2 contaminants exceeding the HGL in our unfiltered water:  - 1.2 PPM fluoride (exceeding the HGL of 0.8 PPM by 50%)  - And 0.0099 PPM of uranium (exceeding the HGL of 0 PPM) Long-term exposure to these impurities in drinking water has been linked to health effects including developmental, reproductive, and kidney effects, with high fluoride exposure increasing the risk of dental and skeletal fluorosis.  A scattering of health-related contaminants were also detected at trace levels below the HGL, including nitrate, sulfate, copper, barium, strontium, and molybdenum.  You can view the full list of contaminants detected in our water, and their concentrations, in the next table.  So what did our filtered water test results show? Starting with the 2 contaminants detected above the HGL, the Bluevua ROPT system eliminated all uranium—but it didn’t completely eliminate fluoride. Our results showed an 83% reduction, which is still pretty good, but not ideal if you want a guaranteed method of fluoride removal. Of the contaminants detected below the HGL, the system removed nitrate, sulfate, copper, and molybdenum by 100%, as well as barium by 77% and strontium by 75%. We were generally pleased with these results, although we’ve seen more complete contaminant elimination from other systems. The lingering traces of fluoride, barium, and strontium prevented Bluevua from getting the top score in this category. Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 Moving on to aesthetic contaminants, or those that can affect water’s taste, smell, and appearance. There was only one contaminant in this category detected in our water: chlorine. To test for chlorine, we used a test strip that was included with our sample-taking kit rather than getting this chemical tested in our water at the lab. Chlorine is highly volatile and dissipates quickly, so testing for it on-site gave us the most accurate understanding of its actual presence in our water.  Around 1 PPM of chlorine was detected initially, and post-filtration with Bluevua, no chlorine was detected at all—a 100% elimination. This was an outcome that we’d expected because the system uses activated carbon filtration media, which has well-documented chlorine reduction abilities. Minerals & Salts Like all reverse osmosis systems, the Bluevua ROPOT’s membrane eliminates not just harmful contaminants, but all “neutral” minerals, salts, and ions.  We tested the system’s base model with the remineralization filter. If you want to add trace minerals back into your water, Bluevua sells a filter that screws on top of the purified water carafe, so water is remineralized before collecting in the carafe.  The Bluevua system reduced all minerals and salts in our water, including:  - Calcium by 86% (from 25.3 to 3.3 PPM) - Magnesium by 60% (6.07 to 2.42 PPM) - And sodium by 59% (9.91 to 4.01 PPM) That’s actually not as much of a reduction as we’ve seen with other RO systems, many of which eliminated minerals by 90%+ in our testing even with an added remineralization filter. What does that mean? Either that the RO membrane doesn’t address impurities as thoroughly as other systems, or that the remineralization filter just does a better job at reintroducing minerals. Given that minerals enhance the taste of water and give it more of a depth of flavor, investing in the separate remineralization filter will further improve the taste and quality of your purified water.  Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 Our water contained only a fraction of the contaminants that Bluevua claims to reduce. For instance, the system has been tested by the manufacturer to reduce chromium III, PFAS, bacteria, plasticizers, pesticides, and some heavy metals that weren’t detected in our own water.  Given the limited scope of our own testing, we like to look for performance certifications from organizations like the NSF, WQA, and IAPMO, to prove a filter’s contaminant reduction abilities beyond the manufacturer’s claims.  Many similar countertop RO systems we’ve tested have been performance certified (the AquaTru is even certified across the board for every single contaminant it’s claimed to reduce). But Bluevua has no certifications for contaminant reduction.  This is disappointing, especially since Bluevua uses misleading marketing language on its product page, such as “Official Third Party Certification”—when actually, the system has only been independently tested. To add to the confusion, Bluevua has shared its WQA Gold Seal certificate at the very top of its test reports page. The Gold Seal informs customers that products have been tested to recognized industry standards. But, in Bluevua’s case, this certificate is for WQA testing for lead-free design only, not contaminant reduction.  In our opinion, the certificate has been intentionally shared above the test reports. The result is that customers wrongly assume the certificate indicates that Bluevua has been performance certified by the WQA.  🚦Filtration Rate Score: 7.50 The Bluevua ROPOT has a pretty typical rate of water production for a countertop RO system. In our testing, it took 5 minutes and 53 seconds to filter enough water to fill the carafe (which holds 60 ounces of water, or around 7.5 cups).  Beyond this, we continued to filter our water until the last 500ml of the unfiltered water tank was emptied, which took a further 1 minute and 26 seconds, totaling 7.317 minutes overall. This equated to a flow rate of 0.06 GPM.  The other countertop RO systems we tested had filtration rates ranging from 0.03 to 0.1 GPM, making the Bluevua system one of the faster filtering models you can get. Efficiency Ratio A reverse osmosis system’s efficiency ratio, or pure-to-wastewater ratio, is a measure of how much water is wasted per gallon of water purified.  All reverse osmosis systems waste water, and knowing a system’s recovery rate helps us to compare its efficiency to similar models and decide whether we’re comfortable with the volume of wastewater produced. The Bluevua ROPOT has a decent 2:1 pure-to-wastewater ratio. While much better than most conventional under-sink reverse osmosis systems, we’ve tested other countertop RO units that have more impressive 3:1 and even 4:1 recovery rates. 📐 Design Score: 10.00 The Bluevua ROPOT system received the highest design score possible, impressing us with its component quality and design certifications.  It consists of the main unit, which houses the filters on the left side, and a slot for the clean water carafe on the right. The water shuts off when the carafe is full, most likely prompted by an internal scale, to prevent overflows.  There’s a smart LCD display on the front of the unit that lets you visualize and monitor your water quality with a real-time TDS reading. You can also select your water volume and see the filter lifespan at a glance.  Like many of the modern countertop RO systems, the unit has a few smart design features that make it more efficient to operate.  These include: - The power-saving standby mode, which is automatically activated when the system isn’t in use - A built-in UV light to kill microorganisms in the water (we got the UV upgrade; non-UV systems are also available)   - Automatic self-cleaning before the first use and each filtration cycle, and when power is restored As a standalone countertop unit, this Bluevua model doesn’t need to be connected to a water line. It stores unfiltered water and wastewater from the RO process in separate tanks, and the purified water collects in the glass carafe. It’s a corded electric model that needs to be plugged into a power outlet, which creates the pressure needed to drive the water through the filter stages.  Component Quality Score: 10.00 The Bluevua ROPOT system is made from polypropylene plastic and polyamide (a type of polymer), with a design that feels sturdy and well-made. The filters themselves, including the RO membrane, also use plastic in their designs.  A big selling point of this system is that the purified water carafe is made of high borosilicate glass carafe instead of plastic, limiting the water’s exposure to plastic components after it has been treated.  Storing the water in a glass container reduces the risk of recontaminating the water with bisphenols or microplastics. This risk is particularly common with mineral-devoid RO water, which readily absorbs contaminants from the container it’s stored in.  Filter Design We didn’t award a score to the Bluevua model for the filters themselves; only their ability to improve our water quality.  But it’s pretty interesting to compare the filters to similar countertop RO systems, as they all seem to use similar or the same filter elements, despite their differing performances in our testing.  The Bluevua system uses 4 filter cartridges:  - A PP sediment filter - A coconut carbon block filter - An RO membrane - A post-carbon filter This appears to be a similar setup to the Waterdrop countertop ROs, the RKIN U1, and Simpure’s Y7P. From testing many of these units ourselves, the filters have very similar designs and are typically the same size, suggesting to us that multiple manufacturers use the same supplier in China for certain filters.   Certification Score: 10.00 The final scoring category for design is certification.  Again, some elements of design quality and safety can’t be deduced from our own experience using a product, which is why we also like to see that a system has obtained a design certification from a reputable organization.  The Bluevua ROPOT system has been certified by the WQA to NSF 372 for lead-free design (remember the confusing WQA GOLD Seal certificate I mentioned earlier).   The entire system and all its filters have received this certification, meaning that, in testing, no part of the system was found to contain lead.  That’s a great outcome, but we’d also like to see the system certified for materials safety, like many of its competitors.  ⚙️ Setup Score: 10.00 The Bluevua ROPOT system was quick and easy to set up, earning it the top score in this category.  Thanks to its plug-and-play design, we just had to rinse the containers with warm water and soap, install the filters following a basic assembly process, then plug the unit into a power outlet and prime the filters. The initial priming process was time-consuming but easy, requiring us to flush water through the system to fill 5 full carafes. Aside from filling the unfiltered water tank, no manual priming work was required.  🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.75 The ROPOT system also has a basic maintenance schedule that you’ll need to follow to keep it in proper working order.  To score the system in this category, we analyzed its servicing requirements and calculated its ongoing spend for replacement filters.  Servicing Requirements 9.50 We haven’t had to replace the ROPOT filters yet, but we consulted the user manual to get a thorough understanding of what’s required. The unit has separate filters to replace, so you’re going have to make more frequent replacements than you would with a single-filter system. The filters last from 12 to 24 months, with the exact lifespan varying from one filter to the next. This makes maintenance seem confusing, but the unit’s display screen indicates the lifespan of each filter with a bar icon and alerts you when a specific filter needs replacing. So while you still have to put in the work buying and replacing the filters, you don’t need to make your own calendar reminders.  Replacing the filters is as easy as installing them for the first time: you just slide the side cover off the unit, lift and twist the expired filter to remove it, and insert the new filter into the base, twisting counter-clockwise until you hear a click.  After replacing a filter, you have to flush water through the system to fill the carafe 3 times before the filter is ready to use.  Aside from changing the filters, the user manual also contains instructions on how to descale the system (remove calcium and magnesium buildup) using white vinegar, citric acid, or lemon juice. We also washed the unfiltered water tank and glass carafe around once a week, and cleaned the outside of the unit with a damp cloth whenever necessary. Costs Score: 10.00 To determine the Bluevua ROPOT’s long-term value for money, we calculated its ongoing spend for each individual filter, then combined these costs to obtain an overall cost per gallon for the filters.  The total maintenance spend for this system came to $0.27/ gallon. Here’s a breakdown of the cost per gallon for each of the filter stages, based on their replacement costs and lifespans:  The Bluevua system is super affordable to maintain, with a similar ongoing cost as its competitors. Interestingly, we’ve found that the systems that cost more to buy upfront often have a lower ongoing spend, despite requiring multiple different filter replacements throughout the year. 🏢 Company Score: 8.65 Now we’ve reviewed everything about the product itself, let’s finish by reviewing Bluevua as a company. Warranty Score: 8.50 Bluevua offers a 1-year limited warranty for all its systems, which protects against defects in materials and workmanship.  From what we can tell, you’ll need to register your unit on the Bluevua website after purchasing it to be eligible for the warranty. The company’s warranty information isn’t readily available online, so the exact terms and conditions are unclear.  Shipping  Score: 9.50 Bluevua offers free shipping to customers based in the continental US. The company currently doesn’t ship at all to Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Find out more about Bluevua’s shipping here.  Returns Score: 8.00 Bluevua’s 30-day returns offering is better than nothing, but there are a few stipulations to be aware of:  - You’ll need to disassemble and repackage your returned items as you originally received them. - The policy is only valid if you make your order at Bluevua.com. The policy applies to all items for 30 days beyond your purchase receipt. You’ll need your order number and shipping address to make a returns request, and Bluevua will send you a free shipping label.  Bluevua’s returns and refund policy can be viewed here.  💰 Value For Money Let’s round off this review with our opinion on the Bluevua ROPOT system’s overall value for money.  It’s priced pretty similarly to the other countertop RO systems on the market, which seems fair, given that they offer very similar results.  But, let’s not forget that Bluevua doesn’t currently hold any performance certifications, and it didn’t completely eliminate some concerning contaminants in our water, like fluoride.  If you like the particular design of this system, you don’t want or need to address fluoride in your water, and you’re not bothered about performance certifications, it might be perfect for you.  But if you’re looking for a performance-certified system that eliminates fluoride, and you still want a system with a glass collection tank, we recommend considering the AquaTru Carafe instead. It’s a bit cheaper and offers a remineralization upgrade, with the reassurance of a performance certification and fluoride removal, offering a superior contaminant reduction performance in our testing. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

If you rent an apartment and deal with hard water, you already know the struggle: Dry, itchy skin no matter how much moisturizer you use.  Hair that feels like straw. Soap that refuses to lather. And the worst part is that you can’t just install a water softener like a homeowner would. Hard water shower filter options are ridiculously limited, so you’re stuck with the effects of hard water forever, right? …Or are you? What if I told you there’s a way to soften your shower water without breaking your lease, invasive installation or spending thousands on a whole-home system? Most renters have no idea this solution even exists—but once you know about it, you’ll wonder how you ever lived without it. The Hard Water Struggle You probably feel the effects of hard water every day—but what actually makes water “hard”? In simple terms, it has high levels of dissolved minerals like calcium and magnesium, which it picks up as it moves through the ground. When you shower, these minerals react with soap, making it harder to rinse off and leaving a sticky residue on your skin and hair. That’s why your skin feels dry and itchy no matter what lotion you use. And why your hair gets brittle, frizzy, and prone to breakage. And it’s not just annoying—it’s scientifically proven to be damaging.  One study found that hard water actually weakens hair, making it more likely to break. Another linked hard water exposure to increased risk of eczema, especially in children. And research suggests it can even disrupt your skin’s natural barrier, making it more susceptible to infection and irritation caused by bacteria. So, how do you fix it? The most effective solution is to soften your water with a water softener, which removes hardness minerals through a process called ion exchange. But here’s the problem: those systems are big, expensive, and require making permanent alterations to your plumbing. If you’re renting, you can see why this isn't a feasible option. That’s why so many people turn to shower filters—which is often a big mistake. See, manufacturers love to claim that their filters soften water, but I tested nine of the most popular shower filters, and guess what?  When I ran my own lab tests, the results were crystal clear: these filters did nothing to reduce water hardness. Apartment Hard Water Shower Filter Solutions So does that mean all these point-of-use shower filters are out? Pretty much.  I did find one shower filter that actually softened my water—the Shower Stick—because it uses ion exchange resin, just like a traditional softener. But would I recommend it? Nope. Its tiny capacity means you’ll be constantly regenerating it, especially if you have really hard water, and the process is a pain. You have to run through multiple tedious steps to mix up a saltwater solution and carefully pour it into the unit. Plus, from a safety perspective, its PVC housing likely contains plasticizers linked to potential health risks. And at nearly $300, you’d expect something better than the flimsy handheld showerhead it comes with. So, what’s the better solution? A Portable RV Water Softener These systems work exactly like a conventional water softener, also using ion exchange to remove hardness minerals.  But unlike whole-home softeners, they’re compact, easy to set up, and don’t require permanent installation. And unlike the Shower Stick, they have a much larger capacity, meaning you won’t be regenerating them every few days.  When you do need to regenerate, it’s way simpler—just drain it, add salt directly to the unit’s wide-mouth opening, rinse, and you’re done.  No mixing solutions, no tedious pouring. One of the most popular options—and the one I personally tested—is the On The Go portable softener.  They wanted to give my readers 20% off, get your coupon code here Depending on your water hardness, it can soften between 275 to 3,200 gallons before needing a regen. It also gives you more flexibility. Instead of forcing you to use one they provide, you can use any showerhead you like but the setup is easiest with a handheld showerhead (more below). And here’s the kicker: at $260, it’s actually cheaper than the Shower Stick, despite offering the same softening performance and lasting much longer between regenerations. ProductShower StickOn the Go Portable Double Standard Water SoftenerUpfront Cost$280$260 Now, of course it’s not perfect—it’s bulky and you’ll need to find a place for it.  You can either keep it inside the shower itself, or on the floor outside, but you may need to run a longer hose for this setup. Not ideal, but a small price to pay for actual soft water. So if you’re tired of dealing with dry skin, frizzy hair, and soap that refuses to lather—this is by far the best option for apartment renters. How to Soften Shower Water (the renter friendly way) Alright, now I’m going to show you step by step how easy it is to set up, and you’ll just need a few extra parts to make it work: - Two ¾-inch to ½-inch male connectors, to connect the softener to the shower hoses - A handheld showerhead - I used this Moen Engage Magnetix one - And an extra shower hose - I used this one, also from Moen And if you really want to protect your softener and improve your water quality, I highly recommend adding a high-performance shower filter upstream.  I used the Weddell Duo, the top performing shower filter in my testing, which removes not only chlorine, but also sediment and the more concerning disinfection byproducts commonly found in city water. Step-by-Step Installation - First, I removed the plastic connectors that come with the softener and replaced them with ¾-inch to ½-inch stainless steel connectors. This step is key for making it compatible with standard shower hoses. - Next, I installed the handheld showerhead bracket onto the shower arm. Since I also wanted to use a filter, I attached the Weddell Duo here which I found to be the best spot because it keeps it out of the way. But if your space is tight, you can install it at the softener’s inlet instead. - I hooked up the inlet hose from the shower arm, well actually the Weddell Filter,  to the softener, - Then ran the outlet hose from the softener to the showerhead.  And that's it! It’s actually pretty simple and you don’t need to be a DIY expert. No drilling, no permanent changes, and instant soft water every time you shower. Test Results and Benefits So like I usually do, I wanted to get some data for you guys about the actual performance of this thing. I used test strips and a titration test to measure my water hardness before and after installing the softener.  My untreated water measured at 5 grains per gallon of hardness, putting it in the “moderately hard” category. After treatment, both tests indicated zero grains per gallon, so my water had been completely softened with all minerals removed. Test MethodUnfilteredOn the Go SoftenerTitration50Test Strips50 So what does that actually mean for your shower experience? Well, soft water helps your skin retain moisture, meaning less dryness, irritation, or that tight, itchy feeling. Your hair should feel softer, look shinier, and be easier to manage—since it’s no longer coated in minerals. Soap and shampoo lather better and rinse off completely, so you’re not left with that sticky film on your skin. And while it’s probably not your top priority but still worth a mention, your shower itself should be easier to clean, with fewer water spots and less soap scum buildup.  Conclusion and Recommendation So if you’re tired of dealing with the effects of hard water but your rental situation rules out traditional softeners, a portable RV softener is the most practical and effective solution. In our testing the On The Go softener completely eliminated water hardness using the most effective ion exchange process, delivering the same results as a full-size softener without the hassle of a permanent installation. It also requires far less maintenance than the Shower Stick, making it a much more convenient option. Now there are plenty of portable RV water softeners on the market, and they all function and look pretty much the same. I chose to test the On The Go Double Standard model because of its high 16,000-grain capacity, durable US-made construction, and user-friendly screw-top design that makes regeneration quick and easy. They wanted to give my readers 20% off, get your coupon code here Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

If you've done some research into water filter pitchers, you’ve probably heard of Brita, but you might not know about LARQ. Both sell similar gravity-fed water filter pitchers, but their offerings are different: Brita’s pitchers are more conventional, while LARQ pitchers feature a UV wand alongside a filter.  We recently had the opportunity to test and compare the LARQ vs Brita pitchers, and here, we’ve shared what we thought about both of them. You’ll find our performance comparisons across numerous testing categories, supported by our own objective data and subjective analysis.   Overall Score: 8.21 LARQ Best For: Reduces more contaminants Prevents microorganism growth with UV light Higher-quality design Overall Score: 6.59 Brita Best For: Reassurance of a well-known brand name Performance certified More affordable option In our testing, LARQ was better at reducing most contaminants in our water and provided the reassurance of protection against microorganisms in our filtered water, but Brita has a performance certification and had a much faster filtration rate. 📊 Our Testing Data At Water Filter Guru, we personally test every single water filter mentioned in our reviews. We test 6 different factors that impact the performance, quality, and value of the filter. Here are the scores that LARQ and Brita achieved across the testing categories: FactorLARQBritaContaminant Reduction8.144.29Filtration Rate7.0010.00Design8.108.80Setup9.009.50Maintenance9.009.75Company8.358.50 If you want to know exactly what data went into the overall performance scores for the pitchers, you’ll find it in the next table.  FactorLARQBritaWinnerOverall Score8.216.59LARQHealth Related Contaminants8.303.50LARQAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNoneNSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 401BritaFiltration Rate0.60 GPH2.92 GPHBritaComponent QualityOutstandingFairLARQComponent CertificationNot CertifiedNSF/ANSI 42, 53BritaSetupExcellentOutstandingBritaServicing RequirementsExceptionalOutstandingLARQCosts$0.54/ gal$0.17/ galBritaWarranty Length1 year1 yearTieShippingFree on orders over $80 within the contiguous US$35 order thresholdTieReturns30 days, but only if unopened30 daysBrita 🚰 Contaminant Reduction The reason why you want to buy a water filter is to reduce contaminants in your water, so contaminant reduction was our number-one testing priority.  Rather than rely solely on the manufacturers’ performance claims and third-party testing sheets, we obtained our own data from testing our water quality at home.  We also looked for official performance certifications from the WQA, NSF, or IAPMO, which are more legitimate and reassuring than third-party test data. Our Lab Test Results We used Tap Score tests by SimpleLab to test our unfiltered water and the filtered water from the Brita Elite and LARQ PureVis pitchers. Our test results were delivered in the form of an interactive report for each water sample we tested.  Using these reports, we were able to see which contaminants were detected in our unfiltered water, and how the two filters had altered the concentrations of these contaminants.  We used Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), which are stricter than the federal MCLs, when analyzing our water quality.  Take a look at our test data in the next table. The LARQ pitcher did a much better job at reducing the majority of contaminants in our water compared to Brita. But Brita doesn’t claim that the Elite filter can reduce many of these impurities, nor is the filter tested or certified to reduce these.  We think Brita’s contaminant reduction score would have been higher if we used the pitcher to filter a water supply containing contaminants that it is tested to reduce.  That’s why testing your water beforehand is so important, so you can buy a filter that’s designed to address your unique water quality issues.     Health-Related Contaminants First, we analyzed our test reports to see which health-related contaminants our water contained, and how LARQ and Brita compared in reducing these.  Our test water was treated groundwater from a shared well, which contained 8 contaminants with possible health effects.   Of these, there were two impurities - fluoride and uranium - that were detected at levels above the HGL. We were particularly looking to reduce these, at least down to safe concentrations, although ideally, we wanted to eliminate them entirely.  Here’s the full list of contaminants detected in our water. The LARQ PureVis pitcher reduced 100% uranium, barium, strontium, and molybdenum, as well as 97% copper, 88% sulfate, and 20% nitrate. We were disappointed to see that it didn’t reduce fluoride, but LARQ doesn’t claim fluoride reduction.  The Brita pitcher performed more poorly than LARQ, only reducing 26% uranium, 13% strontium, 17% molybdenum, and 5% nitrate. And, like LARQ, it didn't reduce fluoride. It did, however, reduce 100% barium and 97% copper, the same as LARQ.  Aesthetic Contaminants Our unfiltered water contained around 1 PPM of chlorine, which pulled down its aesthetic score in our testing.  LARQ and Brita both reduced 100% of this impurity, bringing our water’s aesthetic score up to perfect. The pitchers both use activated carbon in their filters, which is the best solution for addressing chlorine-related tastes and odors.   Minerals & Ions We didn’t plan or expect to reduce healthy or beneficial mineral ions in our water. From experience, we typically find that only RO systems and those that use ion exchange resins reduce minerals due to the comprehensive nature of their purification process.  So we were surprised to see that the LARQ PureVis pitcher reduced calcium by 83%, and magnesium by 93%, in our water. It also reduced around 50% sodium. We saw an increase in potassium from 0 PPM to 77.3 PPM in our filtered water, so we think the pitcher uses a cation exchange resin, which exchanges potassium with other ions.  There were no surprising outcomes with the Brita Elite filter: it didn’t reduce the calcium and magnesium concentrations in our water. We didn’t score the filters in this category, but we prefer the fact that Brita doesn’t reduce minerals given their taste and health benefits.   Performance Certifications We can only get so much information from our own water quality testing because our water contains just a fraction of the contaminants that exist today. We place a lot of importance on official performance certifications because they provide proof that a filter can reduce contaminants that might not be present in our own water.  A great example of this is the Brita Elite pitcher’s WQA and IAMPO certifications to NSF Standards 42, 53, and 401, for the reduction of 15 out of the 33 contaminants listed on the performance data sheet. These contaminants include BPA, Particulates Class I, asbestos, mercury, PFOS, and PFOA - none of which were detected in our own water.  The LARQ pitcher currently isn’t certified - it only has third-party testing data, so we gave it a poorer score in this subcategory.  🚦Filtration Rate The LARQ PureVis and Brita Elite pitchers both use gravity filtration. We timed their filtration processes and measured them in gallons per hour (GPH).  ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateLARQ7.000.60 GPHBrita10.002.92 GPH The LARQ PureVis pitcher was unexpectedly slower than many of the other pitchers we tested, filtering 0.281 gallons of water in 28 minutes and 6 seconds. This gave it a filtration rate of just 0.60 GPH. On the other end, the Brita Elite pitcher had one of the fastest filtration rates of at 2.92 GPH, based on its ability to filter 0.391 gallons of water in 8:01 minutes. It filtered water almost five times faster than LARQ.  We think a reason for Brita’s slightly faster filtration speed is that its filter has a simpler design, without the resistance of multiple different filtration layers and materials. But this doesn’t explain why LARQ’s filtration rate is so slow, given that many other water filter pitchers we tested had more comprehensive filter designs and still exceeded 2 GPH.  💲 Upfront Cost Brita and LARQ are on opposite ends of the scale when it comes to upfront cost, too.  When we got the LARQ PureVis pitcher to test, it cost $139 including the Advanced filter (the Essential filter is cheaper but less effective). This is pretty pricey - all the other water filter pitchers we’ve tested so far haven’t exceeded $100.  Brita is well-known for being an affordable brand, and the 10-Cup Tahoe pitcher cost $41.99 at the time of our testing. However, the included filter was Brita’s less capable offering, the Basic, so we ended up paying for the Elite filter on top of our initial purchase.   Looking at value for money, Brita has the less impressive offering, so we wouldn’t expect to spend any more than we did. LARQ is the only pitcher we’ve tested to have a UV light, so again, it makes sense to us why this pitcher is more expensive. We think both systems are worth their price because they appeal to specific preferences and situations.  ProductPriceFilters IncludedLARQ PureVis$139.002Brita 10-Cup Tahoe pitcher$41.991 📐 Design LARQ and Brita don’t differ too much in terms of their key design components. Both are pitchers with similar water-holding capacities (LARQ holds 8 cups, while Brita holds 10 cups), and both have the same unfiltered water reservoir, which holds the filter at the bottom.  There are only a few differences between the two: the LARQ PureVis pitcher also uses a UV wand, and we found that the Brita Elite pitcher’s design quality was inferior to LARQ’s. The LARQ filter element is unique in that it is flat and doesn't sit down in the filtered water. Here are the design scores we awarded to each of the pitchers.  ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyLARQ8.10OutstandingNot certifiedBrita8.80FairCertified LARQ did better here because it has the better component quality, despite the fact that Brita is the only pitcher in this comparison with a certification for materials safety.  Component Quality  Water filters are typically made of plastic, and while we don’t expect them to be as durable as other systems (like stainless steel units), we still have high standards for their component quality. The LARQ pitcher was one of two systems (the other being the Clearly Filtered pitcher) that met these high standards.  There doesn’t appear to be information on LARQ’s website about its filter materials. We reached out to the company’s customer service, who told us that its filters are made from BPA-free PP (polypropylene), and the pitchers are made of BPA-free ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) and SMMA (styrene methyl methacrylate copolymer). LARQ customer support conversation We noted that these plastics felt thicker, sturdier, and better quality than the majority of the other pitchers we tested (which felt thinner and more brittle in comparison).  Our Brita system also fell into this second category of pitchers. It’s made from polypropylene and SAN (Styrene acrylonitrile resin), and its plastics felt flimsier and poorer quality compared to LARQ’s.  Plastic & Its Potential Setbacks Despite the differences in their design feel and quality, LARQ and Brita both have one thing in common: they’re both predominantly plastic systems.  If you want to avoid plastics because you’re concerned about microplastics leaching, you may want to look elsewhere.  This is particularly our concern with the LARQ pitcher because UV exposure increases the leaching or formation of “problematic plastic-associated substances”. Note: We couldn’t find any studies that explicitly discussed UV exposure and plastic leaching from ABS and SMMA (the two plastics used in the LARQ pitcher).  A few water filter manufacturers sell glass or stainless steel pitchers. Brita used to sell a glass pitcher, and you may find it sold by some retailers, but it’s no longer available on the company’s website.  Filter Materials & Media The type(s) and number of filter media used in a water pitcher filter affect its overall performance.  Generally, the more filter media that are used in combination, the more thorough the filtration process, and the greater the number of contaminants that can be targeted.  We saw a difference in performance between LARQ and Brita Elite, and we think this reflects the difference in their filter designs.  The LARQ PureVis Advanced filter uses an activated carbon filter - and that’s the only filter media that’s disclosed by the manufacturer. We think the pitcher also contains an ion exchange resin because it reduced additional contaminants in our water that aren’t typically targeted by activated carbon, like uranium, barium, and molybdenum.  What makes the PureVis pitcher unique is its UV wand, which exposes the filtered water to UV light. This helps protect the pitcher vessel from bacterial growth and also meant that we didn’t have to clean it as often. The Brita Elite’s filter design, in comparison, is simpler. It uses activated carbon media, and again, Brita doesn’t mention any other media used in the pitcher. There could be additional media, but it’s difficult to say for sure because the pitcher didn’t effectively target many contaminants in our water.  Materials Safety Certification Materials safety certifications are one of our key scoring criteria within the design category. We value the reassurance that these certifications can provide in knowing that a water filter is safe and suitable for its purpose.  The LARQ PureVis pitcher currently doesn’t have any design or materials safety certifications.  The Brita Elite pitcher is certified for materials safety as a component of its WQA and IAMPO performance certifications, so it got the top score here. ⚙️ Setup If you hate DIY and you’re looking for a water filtration system that’s pretty much ready to go out of the box, a water filter pitcher like LARQ or Brita is a great choice.  The pitchers got similarly high setup scores, but Brita did best overall. You can see our results below.  ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeLARQ9.00Around 15 to 20 minutesBrita9.50Less than 10 minutes There are a few basic setup tasks that we followed for the Brita Elite and LARQ PureVis pitchers:  - First, we unboxed the pitcher, reservoir, and filter.  - We placed the filter to one side and washed out the pitcher and reservoir in warm water with soap.  - Next, we prepared the filter following the manufacturer’s instructions.  - We could then start filtering our water.  In terms of preparing the filters, the Brita filter was easiest here because we just had to hold it under running water for 30 seconds, while LARQ’s filter needed to be soaked in water for 10 minutes. We also had to filter and discard the first batch of water from our LARQ pitcher. LARQ had a few additional, unique setup tasks because it uses a UV wand, which needed to be charged before use (we charged it overnight). You may also choose to download the LARQ app. The app is currently not compatible with Android devices, so we downloaded it on an iPad. It gave us access to cool features that we don’t have when using a water filter pitcher alone, including water intake tracking. We could also track the filter life status and the UV wand’s battery life.  Both of our pitchers had filter replacement indicator lights, which we set during the initial setup process so they’d accurately count down the filter lifespans.  🔧 Maintenance Easy maintenance is another reason why water filter pitchers are popular, and Brita and LARQ both performed well in this category.  Here are the maintenance scores that the pitchers received.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsLARQ9.00Exceptional$0.54/ galBrita9.75Outstanding$0.17/ gal This was another close outcome, but Brita got the highest score because it has a lower ongoing cost.  Servicing Requirements  The LARQ PureVis and Brita Elite pitchers use a single filter, and our main servicing task was to replace the filter every few months.  Every replacement filter needed to be soaked (for LARQ) or rinsed (for Brita) using the same filter preparation steps that we’d followed in the setup process.  The Brita Elite filter has the better capacity of the two (up to 120 gallons, which Brita says equates to around 6 months). The PureVis Advanced filter has half the capacity of Brita’s: 60 gallons, or up to 3 months. The filter lifespan depends on how much water you use and the quality of the water being filtered.   There was an additional maintenance task for the LARQ pitcher only: charging the UV wand. We did this around once a month, or whenever the light on the lid flashed green. We also washed out the pitcher and reservoir to keep them clean. For Brita, we did this once or twice a week. For LARQ, which has the UV wand in the pitcher vessel, we cleaned it around once or twice a month. Although LARQ protects against pathogens in the pitcher, scale and other debris can still accumulate, which is why we still cleaned it out occasionally.  Maintenance Costs We noticed a significant difference between LARQ and Brita when it came to their ongoing maintenance costs.  The PureVis Advanced filter has an ongoing cost of $0.54/ gallon, so it’s up to triple the maintenance cost of most other pitchers we tested, including Brita.  The Brita Elite filter is very affordable, with a long-term cost of just $0.17/ gallon. There are two reasons why the pitcher is so affordable: its filters have a long projected lifespan, and Brita replacement filters are cheaper than from many competitors.  It’s worth noting that we upgraded the filters in both of these pitchers: we used the Advanced filter instead of the Essential filter in the LARQ pitcher, and we upgraded from the Basic filter to the Elite filter in the Brita pitcher.  In terms of value for money, Brita is best if you’re looking for the longest filter lifespan and want to keep your maintenance spend to a minimum.  But we want to reiterate the importance of knowing what your water contains. Despite having a higher ongoing cost, the LARQ pitcher may be the best value for you if your water contains impurities that LARQ, not Brita, targets. LARQ is also best if you want to protect your filtered water from pathogens - a benefit that Brita doesn’t offer. 🏢 Company We know the importance of being able to trust the company behind the product: the reassurance in knowing that your purchase is protected with some form of warranty, and the clarity of fair and transparent shipping and returns policies.  We’ve compared LARQ and Brita as companies in this category. ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsLARQ8.351 yearFree on orders over $80 within the contiguous US30 days, but only if unopenedBrita8.501 year$35 order threshold30 days Both got similar company scores, but Brita’s overall score was slightly higher due to its better returns offering.  Warranty Length  LARQ and Brita offer the same 1-year warranty, which is better than the warranties offered by many other water filter pitcher manufacturers (typically spanning 30-90 days). We’re particularly pleased with this offering from Brita given that its pitchers are cheaper and less high-end than LARQ’s.  Shipping  Both manufacturers tied in the shipping category, too. They offer free shipping, but only if customers reach a certain order threshold.  LARQ offers free shipping for orders above $80 within the contiguous US, while Brita’s minimum spend is lower: $35.  Keep in mind that LARQ’s pitchers are more expensive than Brita’s, and for both manufacturers, you’ll get free shipping on your initial pitcher purchase. But you’ll probably have to pay a shipping fee for replacement filters unless you buy them elsewhere. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

Water is essential for our well-being and survival. While we often focus on the source and quality of our drinking water, another critical factor that deserves attention is its pH level. The pH of water can significantly impact its taste, safety, and potential health benefits. In this article, we'll explore the importance of pH in drinking water and discuss the ideal pH range for optimal health. 📌 Key Takeaways - The recommended pH level of drinking water is between 6.5 and 8.5 - While the EPA recommends this range, it is not enforced. - If you're concerned about your water's pH, reach out to your local water municipality. 📏 The pH Scale The pH scale is probably something that you learned about in grade school. It is essentially a way of measuring the alkalinity or acidity of a solution or substance. The pH scale is a range from 0 to 14. Acidic solutions have a pH lower than 7. Examples include orange juice or alcohol. Whereas alkaline or basic solutions have a pH of greater than 7. A completely neutral solution has a pH level of 7 and is not acidic or basic, you guessed it, "neutral". Pure water is considered a neutral solution. When we think of the pH of natural water sources can vary due to factors like geological conditions, environmental influences, and human activities. 📉 What pH Level is Safe for Drinking? In the United States, the Environmental protection agency monitors public drinking water quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in charge of monitoring public drinking water quality across the United States. Even though the agency monitors a variety of parameters including nutrients, metals and pesticides, pH is considered to be "secondary standard". Secondary standards are non-enforceable guidelines. This means that even though the EPA recommends that public water systems maintain their water between 6.5 and 8.5 pH range, the EPA does not require systems to comply with this guideline. 📈 Unsafe pH Level If a pH level is too high or too low this can be a sign of contamination. Particularly if the pH is less than 6.5, this can indicate acidic water. When acidic the water may be contaminated with pollutants, making it unsafe to drink. If water is too acidic it can also damage metal pipes. A large portion of municipal water supply companies will test their water pH to monitor for pollutants. This is because pollutants may be indicated by a changing pH. If pollutants are present in the water, water companies will treat the water in order to make sure it is safe drinking water. If you suspect your pH levels are outside the recommended range, you can always contact your local municipality. Additionally, if you're concerned about the pH level of your tap water, you can always install your own water purification system at home as well. 🚰 Alkaline Water Trend In recent years, an alkaline water trend has emerged. So what is alkaline water? It's generally water with a ph greater than 8.5. There are many bottled water companies that promote drinking alkaline water. These companies claim alkaline water can reduce symptoms of acid reflux, improve high blood pressure, enhance hydration, have anti-aging properties and more. However, there is not enough evidence to support these claims. In fact, there is little scientific evidence available and more research is necessary at this time. Will drinking alkaline water harm you? No, it won't, however if you're looking to get well hydrated, plain water does the trick just fine! To learn more on alkaline water, please visit this article. 🔎 Impact of pH on Drinking Water - Taste and Palatability: The pH levels of water can impact its taste. Water that may be too acidic or alkaline may have poor taste and make it less appealing for the consumer. For example, consuming acidic water may have a metallic or sour taste. The ideal pH for drinking water is generally considered to be between 6.5 and 8.5, as this range is more palatable to most people. - Health Considerations: As mentioned above, the impact of the pH of ingested water on the body's overall pH balance is a topic of ongoing research.It's important to note that the body already has effect systems in place to regulate your body's internal pH, and the type of water we drink has not been shown to affect this process. - Corrosion and Plumbing: Extremely acidic or alkaline water can contribute to corrosion in plumbing systems.For example, hard water can cause damage to piping and appliances. To protect both the plumbing infrastructure and the quality of the water, it's advisable to maintain a balanced pH level. 📑 Conclusion Ideally, your tap water has a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. Even though the EPA does not enforce these guidelines, it's clearly important that the water we drink is within this desired pH range. The pH of our drinking water can significantly influence taste, as well as potential health and safety implications. If you conduct a home test and it's outside this range, call your local municipality to alert them. Related readings: - Determining Healthy TDS Levels for Drinking Water - Insights from a Dietician on Excessive Water Consumption ❔ Frequently Asked Questions Is a pH of 9.5 in Water Good? A pH of 9.5 would be considered pretty alkaline. Generally, the EPA recommends water with a pH of 6.5-8.5. A pH outside this range could indicate contamination. What is the Most Hydrating pH of Water? As mentioned earlier in this article, the desired pH for water is between 6.5-8.5. Regardless of the water's pH the most important thing is that you drink enough water in general! Is Water with Higher pH Better? Alkaline water has become an emerging trend (water with a pH between 8 and 9). Many companies claim that it has a variety of health benefits however there is little evidence to support these claims. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that you drink enough water daily! Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

Water is essential for life and is necessary for many different processes of the human body. While most drinking water in the US is considered to be safe, not all water is created "equal". In some instances, tap water can contain a range of contaminants like heavy metals and other chemicals that can pose serious health risks if consumed over time. This is where purified water comes in. There are many different options for drinking water available so it can be challenging to determine what's best for you. In this post, we will discuss what purified water is, the benefits and drawbacks, dive into the various types of water purification methods available and review how you can purify your water at home. 📌 Key Takeaways - Purified water is water that has been filtered or processed to remove impurities and contaminants. - Purified water offers benefits such as improved taste, quality, safety, and health properties. - Potential drawbacks of drinking purified water include cost and maintenance, removal of beneficial minerals, and potential health risks from over-purification 🤔 What is Purified Water? Purified water is essentially water that has been filtered or processed to remove different impurities and contaminants. Purified water can be defined as water that had had all minerals, salts, metals, chemicals and other contaminants removed. This also includes bacteria. Specific common contaminants that are removed through water purification include the following: - Heavy metals (lead, copper, etc.) - Viruses, parasites & pathologic bacteria - Pesticides & herbicides - Pharmaceuticals As mentioned earlier, tap water in the US is considered safe to drink. Your local water municipality is required to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards. Some people may choose to purify there water for a variety of reasons including improved taste, quality, safety or other health properties. ⚗️ Types of Water Purification Methods When you think of purified water, this can be achieved through a variety of methods. Some water purification methods include: - Filtration: A home water filtration system can remove a range of contaminants, including lead, chlorine, and sediment, depending on the type of filter used. There are many different types of home water filters available, including pitcher filters, faucet-mounted filters, and whole-house filtration systems. - Distillation: Distillation involves heating water to create steam, which is then condensed back into water. This process removes impurities, including minerals and bacteria, leaving behind clean, purified water. Distillation can be achieved using a home distillation unit or by heating water in a pot with a lid and collecting the condensed water in a separate container. - Reverse osmosis: Reverse osmosis systems involve pushing water through a semi-permeable membrane to remove impurities, including minerals, chemicals, and bacteria. Reverse osmosis units are available for home use, but they can be expensive and require professional installation. As mentioned above, the main goal of these water purification methods is to produce water that is "pure" and free of harmful chemicals, bacteria, viruses, and other contaminants. Additionally, one of the most simple "at home" ways to purify your water is through boiling the water. Boiling your water will remove all viruses and bacteria, making it safe to drink. 👨‍🔧 To read more details on the various water purification methods, check out this article. ✅ Benefits of Drinking Purified Water Even though tap water in the US is considered safe to drink, there still may be some trace contaminants in your local drinking water. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established legal limits for over 90 contaminants in drinking water, which are considered safe for consumers. However, individual states are allowed to regulate their own drinking water standards as long as they meet the EPA's minimum requirements or "set limits" for contaminants. Consequently, some states may have more rigorous drinking water regulations than others. Despite efforts to ensure the safety of public drinking water, it may still contain small amounts of contaminants that could be harmful to health particularly if consumed for long amounts of time. For example, heavy metals such as lead and copper, which can cause stomach problems and brain damage if ingested over time, can leach into drinking water, even in countries with closely monitored public water sources. Guaranteed Safe Drinking Water When you use water purification systems such as home water filters or drink purified bottled water, another level of purification is achieved. Depending on the type of purification system used, it will remove metals, chemicals, and other contaminants as listed earlier. Tap water is typically treated with chlorine to kill unwanted pathogens. Some water purification systems will fully eliminate the chlorine added. Some studies have shown that chlorinated water may increase risk for certain types of cancer such as colorectal cancers. Taste and Odor Furthermore, water purification also eliminates unpleasant flavors or odor associated with chemical treatments like chlorine or metal plumbing, providing fresh and pure-tasting drinking water. Convenience When you have regular access to purified drinking water at home this can eliminate the need to purchase bottled water regularly which can be costly and contribute to excess plastic waste. Drinking purified water can reduce the use of plastic if you enjoy drinking purified bottled water. ⛔️ Potential Drawbacks of Drinking Purified Water While purified water may have some benefits, like all things there are some drawbacks. In this section we will discuss some of the disadvantages of drinking purified water. Cost and Maintenance If you opt to purchase a water purification system for your home this can be costly. This is because it requires the purchase of additional items compared to drinking tap water. Additionally, paying to install certain purification systems can cost hundreds of dollars. Aside from the initial costs, maintenance can also be expensive. Removes Beneficial Minerals Depending on the purification process you use, some systems may remove dissolved minerals as well. This includes minerals like calcium, magnesium and potassium. These minerals are beneficial for over all health and could be detrimental to remove from drinking water. Examples of purification methods that may remove these minerals are reverse osmosis or distillation systems. 🩺 Is Purified Water Safe to Drink? Now that you have read a little more on purified water, you're probably wondering is it safe to drink? The answer to that question is, yes. Purified water is considered safe to drink because it can remove many contaminants like bacteria or metal from your tap water. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, some purification systems will also remove beneficial minerals. However, not all purification systems do this. Some water filters keep the beneficial minerals in place. 📑 Conclusion In conclusion, while tap water in the US is considered safe to drink, purified water can offer additional benefits by removing impurities and contaminants, improving taste and odor, and reducing plastic waste. Various water purification methods, including filtration, distillation, and reverse osmosis, can be used to achieve purified water. However, there are also potential drawbacks to consider, such as the cost of installation and maintenance, and the removal of beneficial minerals during the purification process. Ultimately, the decision to drink purified water is a personal one, based on individual preferences and circumstances. ❔ Frequently Asked Questions Is it Safe to Drink Purified Water? Yes, it is safe to drink purified water. Purified water has undergone a process to remove contaminants and impurities, which makes it safe for consumption. Some purification systems are different than others, so it's important to pick a purification process that works best for you and your personal preferences. There are some methods of water purification that may remove beneficial minerals from the water so it's important to make sure you have variety of foods in your diet so you are getting these nutrients from other sources in your diet other than water. Overall, drinking purified water is a safe and healthy choice for most people. Is it Good to Drink Purified Water Everyday? Drinking purified water is considered to be safe to drink. Drinking plenty of water daily is essential for human health. However, it is important to note that drinking too much purified water can lead to mineral deficiencies since it sometimes lacks essential minerals. Overall, drinking purified water is a good choice for most people, especially if your tap water has been found to contain harmful contaminants. However, it is important to maintain a balance and ensure that you are getting enough minerals and nutrients from other sources in your diet. Is it Better to Drink Purified Water or Spring Water? There are many differences between purified water and spring water. However, there’s no definitive “better” option between. This is because it is up to personal preferences. The biggest thing to keep in mind is that you want to make sure you stay hydrated. If you would prefer water with a good amount of minerals, than spring water is probably the best fit for you. Is Purified Water the Healthiest? No, purified water is not the "healthiest" water to drink. There are many different kinds of water available, however at the end of the day the most important thing is that you stay adequately hydrated. The recommended amount of water daily is a minimum of 8 cups. However, depending on where you live and your individual body you may need more. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

The Aquasana Shower Filter is sold by one of the more established water filter manufacturers, but when we tested this filter ourselves, it got one of the worst scores of all the shower filters we used.  In this guide, we’ll be breaking down the Aquasana filter’s performance score, assessing its contaminant reduction abilities, flow rate, ongoing cost, installation and maintenance requirements, and overall value for money. The data shared in this guide is a combination of our subjective and objective testing across a range of performance categories. Overall Score: 7.86 How We Test & Score 6.86 Contaminant Reduction 7.90 Design 9.75 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 9.00 Setup 8.60 Company What We Like One of the few companies to make truthful contaminant reduction claims Fast flow rate Reduced 100% chlorine Design has a durable feel What We Don’t Like Not performance certified Expensive upfront cost Poorest overall contaminant reduction performance Price$119.99Contaminants Reduced9+CertificationsNot CertifiedProcessCoconut Shell Carbon + KDFFilter Capacity10,000 gallonsAnnual Cost~$120Warranty180 days 📊 Scoring Data The Aquasana Shower Filter is pretty expensive for what it is, costing $120 at the time of our review. Our main testing outcome was to deduce whether or not the filter was worth its upfront spend. We used 6 key scoring categories to analyze the filter, combining and averaging the scores into an overall performance score. Our testing data is displayed in the table below.  CriteriaResultsOverall Score7.86Health Related Contaminants6.80Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot Certified Filtration Rate1.54 GPMComponent QualityExcellentComponent CertificationNot CertifiedSetupExcellentServicing RequirementsOutstandingCosts$0.006/ gallonWarranty Length180 daysShippingVariable Shipping CostsReturns90-day Guarantee 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 6.86 Contaminant reduction is the performance category that most heavily influences a water filter’s overall score in our testing system. To assess filters in this category, we test our own water before and after running it through the filter, then compare the results.  This category is split into two subcategories: our own test results, and evidence of official third party contaminant reduction certifications by the NSF, IAPMO, or the WQA. Our Performance Testing Score: 6.97 We used SimpleLab's Tap Score, a laboratory testing service, for all our shower filter contaminant reduction tests. This involved sending a couple of samples of water to the lab:  - Unfiltered water straight from our existing showerhead - Filtered water from the shower filter Our results were delivered in an interactive test report, which allowed us to compare contaminants against different health standards. There’s the option to use the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for this purpose, but we decided to use Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), because these are stricter than the MCLs and prioritize human health.  We also tested for: - Chlorine in our water using the included DIY test strip. Chlorine dissipates quickly so couldn’t be accurately detected with our main testing kit.  - Water hardness using a separate titration test, so we could get a more accurate, on-site hardness detection.  Note: We decided to test the Aquasana Shower Filter with cold water, so we could accurately detect disinfection byproducts, which dissipate quickly from hot water. DBPs are contaminants with known health effects in water vapor, so it was essential that we measured these accurately in our water.  Health-Related Contaminants Score: 6.80 The Aquasana shower filter actually received the worst score of all the carbon- or KDF-based shower filters we tested for reducing contaminants with health effects. But before we discuss the filter’s performance, let’s look at which contaminants were detected in our water.  Our Tap Score test detected more than 10 contaminants with known health effects, but for this review, we only focused on those that can be harmful to health in shower water, either due to inhalation or dermal exposure (rather than ingestion).  Of these contaminants, chlorine and four disinfection byproducts in the trihalomethanes (THMs) category were detected in our water sample:  - 5.47 PPB of chloroform - 2.62 PPB of bromodichloromethane - 0.74 PPB of dibromochloromethane - 0.25 PPB of bromochloromethane The concentrations of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane exceeded the Tap Score HGL, meaning they were potentially harmful to health. Bromochloromethane was detected in concentrations below the Reporting Limit, so the testing lab was unable to evaluate its safety in our water.  Why are DBPs dangerous in shower water? A 2020 study linked exposure to these contaminants in shower vapor with an increased risk of “cancer and non-cancer risks” when inhaled.  Aquasana claims to reduce over 90% of chlorine, but there’s no mention of DBPs or any other contaminants in the product description. So, did the filter perform as anticipated or exceed our expectations? The good news is that, as we’d hoped, the Aquasana Shower Filter reduced 100% chlorine in our shower water, which actually exceeded Aquasana’s claims. We also saw a 73% decrease in total THMs, which was a nice surprise, especially as most of the other shower filters we tested didn’t reduce these.  So what was it that brought the filter’s score down to one of the lowest in this testing category?  There were a couple of influencing factors, here:  - First, the filter didn’t address other health-harmful contaminants as effectively as many of its competitors. While we only focused on chlorine and DBPs for the purpose of this test, our results were still influenced by the other contaminants detected.  - Second, we saw increases in copper and zinc, which also affected the score. Copper increased by 58%, and zinc increased by a massive 40,924%, up to 3.7 PPM (exceeding the lab’s HGL of 2 PPM). We believe this is a result of leaching from the KDF media, but it’s concerning that such a substantial amount of zinc leached from the filter.  Water Hardness We combined data from our Tap Score lab test and our more precise on-site titration test to compare our water hardness before and after filtering it through the Aquasana shower filter.  Again, Aquasana doesn’t claim to reduce water hardness, and we didn’t anticipate this outcome. Why? Because to address hardness minerals, you need an ion exchange resin, and the Aquasana filter only contains KDF and coconut shell carbon.  Here are our unfiltered water results from both tests:  - In our Tap Score test report, our water had a total hardness reading of 128.19 PPM, or 7.49 GPG, which put it in the “hard” category. - Our on-site titration test detected a water hardness of 8 GPG.  Note: Hardness minerals aren’t classed as “health-harmful” contaminants in our Tap Score report, but hard water can still have mild-to-moderate skin and hair effects in shower water, especially if you have a skin condition like eczema.  Here’s how our filtered water results compared: - In our Tap Score test, the total hardness of our water had dropped by just over 1%. - Our titration test detected the same 8 GPG of hardness.  This was as we had expected. Many of us assume that shower filters can address water hardness because so many manufacturers falsely claim this. But hardness reduction is an outcome that we rarely saw in our shower filter testing. Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 Shower filter manufacturers can obtain certifications for the reduction of select contaminants. The most common certification is NSF 177, for the reduction of free available chlorine.  We were disappointed to see that the Aquasana Shower Filter isn’t certified for chlorine reduction (which we’d expected from a more established brand like Aquasana). The filter has only been independently tested—you can view the datasheet here.  Aquasana’s independent testing is for chlorine reduction only, with an average of 91.61% chlorine removal over a series of 22 tests. We’d like to see Aquasana test for additional contaminants with potential health effects in shower water, like DBPs, PFAS, and microplastics, even if they choose not to get the filter officially certified.  🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 We used the same process to measure the flow rate of all the shower filters we tested. This involved timing how long it took to fill 2 cups of water from the filtered showerhead, then combining and averaging these timings before converting them into a gallons-per-minute (GPM) flow rate.  Our recorded 1.54 GPM flow rate for the Aquasana filter put it in the bottom three, but we awarded it a 10.00 score in this category. Its flow rate is still fast for a shower filter, and we didn’t notice a reduction in water pressure.  The maximum flow rate cited in the owners’ manual is 2.5 GPM. 📐 Design Score: 7.80 The Aquasana Shower Filter redeemed itself with its slightly higher design score of 7.80, this time putting it in the top three of all the shower filters we tested.  Aquasana is one of the only manufacturers that offers different styles of shower filter, rather than just the same style in different colors. The available options are:  - A handheld wand in chrome or white - A standard fixed showerhead that screws directly onto the filter You can also buy the filter on its own to use with your existing showerhead (a slightly more affordable option) if you prefer.  Appearance-wise, this isn’t the most attractive filter we’ve seen. It’s definitely more of a practical-looking unit, but, in our opinion, quality is far more important than appearance.  Component Quality Score: 9.00 We were pretty impressed with the Aquasana filter’s component quality. It’s made from sturdier plastic than other filters and doesn’t feel thin or flimsy, which suggests it should be a more durable option.  The filter hangs down from below the unit, rather than extending the showerhead downwards, so it doesn’t change the height or positioning of the showerhead itself. This helpful design feature also means that you can unscrew the filter housing without having to detach the showerhead, making maintenance easier.  Filter Materials The Aquasana system contains coconut shell carbon and KDF media. These are commonly used in shower filters, primarily offering chlorine reduction. KDF also reduces select heavy metals, and carbon addresses other chemicals like pesticides, although this isn’t super relevant in a shower filter.  It’s not clear whether the filter uses carbon block or granular activated carbon. Usually, when a carbon filter addresses disinfection byproducts, it means it uses carbon block, which is more densely packed and offers more comprehensive contaminant reduction.  But the Aquasana filter has a unique upflow design that extends the contact time between the water and the media, and this could be why it’s capable of DPB reduction when similar filters are not.  Materials Safety Certification Score: 6.00 Aquasana doesn’t have a materials safety certification, which is a shame—this, combined with its sturdy design, would have pushed it ahead of its competitors in the design category.  While materials safety certifications aren’t legally required, they reassure us that a filter has been tested and approved for design safety.  ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.00 Setup is nice and easy for the Aquasana Shower Filter, as simple as replacing your existing showerhead with a new one.  The installation instructions in the owner’s manual are easy to follow, and setup took us around five minutes. You don’t need any special tools or equipment—just pliers and plumber’s tape to wrap around the shower pipe and ensure a tight fit.  Once installed, the filter needs to be flushed, and this process is also easy. We just turned on the cold water and let it flow through the shower for two minutes, then, at a normal temperature, turned the water on and off three times until the water ran clear.  You’ll be able to install this Aquasana model yourself even if DIY isn’t your strong point.   🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.50 Aquasana also got one of the highest scores in the maintenance category, being easier to maintain than most other shower filters and having one of the lowest ongoing spends.   Servicing Requirements 9.50 The Aquasana Shower Filter is super simple to maintain, with just one filter to replace. The filter’s design made maintenance much easier than other filters because we could unscrew the housing without having to first remove the shower head.  Aquasana’s predicted lifespan for the filter is up to 6 months, equating to a water filtering capacity of around 10,000 gallons. The lifespan of a filter depends on water quality, but on average, you’ll only need to replace the filter around twice a year.  Costs Score: 10.00 As for maintenance costs, we calculated the cost-per-gallon of the Aquasana shower at just $0.006, making it one of the most affordable options.  How do we calculate maintenance costs? We combine the manufacturer’s filter lifespan claims with the price of replacement filters online.  🏢 Company Score: 8.60 Since Aquasana is an established brand, we were expecting it to lead the pack with its warranty, shipping, and returns offerings. But while it got a decent score in this category, it wasn’t actually one of the best.  Warranty Score: 8.00 Aquasana offers a 6-month warranty, which is pretty decent, but not the best we’ve seen for a shower filter (1 year).  Under the warranty, Aquasana says they’ll “provide a replacement that fulfills the remaining estimated lifespan/capacity of your original purchase and send it to you with installation instructions” within this 6-month warranty period.  The warranty only applies to manufacturing defects and doesn’t cover issues caused by misuse or water damage.  Learn more about Aquasana’s warranty here.  Shipping  Score: 8.00 Aquasana’s shipping costs are variable depending on the product you buy and where you’re located. As well as the U.S., the company also ships to Canada, but notes that shipments are “subject to provincial duties and taxes at time of delivery”, at the responsibility of the customer.  Click here for more information on Aquasana’s shipping policy.  Returns Score: 10.00 We awarded Aquasana the highest score in the “returns” subcategory because of the company’s impressive 90-day guarantee.  This guarantee is three times the length of most other shower filter manufacturers’ return policies (30 days) and allows you to trial the filter and return it if, for whatever reason, you decide it’s not for you.  To return the filter, you’ll need to request a Return Authorization Code on the Aquasana website, which entitles you to a full refund of the purchase price of the filter.  There’s some fine print to be aware of, including that you (the customer) will be responsible for return shipping costs.  View Aquasana’s 90-day guarantee here. 💰 Value For Money Now we’ve reached the end of our review, would we recommend the Aquasana Shower Filter? The filter definitely has its positives: it’s sold by a reputable manufacturer and was one of the few shower filters to reduce disinfection byproducts in our testing. It’s also easy to install and is one of the easiest to maintain thanks to its design.  But there are some issues, too: we were concerned about the amount of zinc that leached from the KDF media, and the design, while sturdy, isn’t very attractive. At over $100, it doesn’t offer much more than the filters selling for half its price, and we were disappointed with its lack of a chlorine reduction certification.  Ultimately, the Aquasana Shower Filter might be a good fit for you if you want a reliable filter that reduces chlorine and DBPs from a well-known manufacturer.  But if you’re looking for a filter with a superior, certified performance, it’s worth considering the Weddell Duo instead, which was the best shower filter we tested. Or, if hardness reduction is your top priority, the ShowerStick is the only effective water softening shower filter that we used. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

If you’re a sucker for good marketing, you’ve probably been tempted to buy the Canopy Shower Head Filter. It’s expensive, but has an attractive design, great reviews, and a fancy aroma diffuser that we haven’t seen in any other showerhead filters.  But just because Canopy knows how to market its products, that doesn’t mean this shower filter is better than the rest—and, when we tested the filter ourselves, we quickly determined that it wasn’t. It took sixth place out of the nine shower filters we tested, based on our evaluation of its contaminant reduction, flow rate, installation and maintenance requirements, and more. Here, we’ve shared the results from our subjective and objective assessments. Overall Score: 8.25 How We Test & Score 7.71 Contaminant Reduction 7.20 Design 9.50 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 9.00 Setup 8.80 Company What We Like Had a faster flow rate than any other shower filter we tested Attractive design Reduced 100% chlorine Aroma diffuser is a nice touch What We Don’t Like Exaggerated or misleading contaminant reduction claims Increased copper, zinc, & lead concentrations in our testing Price$150Contaminants Reduced14+CertificationsNot CertifiedProcessGranular Activated Carbon, KDF-55 & Calcium SulfiteFilter Capacity3,000 gallons/cartridgeAnnual Cost~$140Warranty1 year 📊 Scoring Data The Canopy Shower Filter is, on average, around twice the price of most of the other shower filters we tested, with an upfront cost of $150. With this in mind, we were keen to determine the filter’s overall value for money by analyzing its performance across 6 key testing factors. We combined and averaged the scores to award the system an overall performance score. You can find our test results in the following table. CriteriaResultsOverall Score8.25Health Related Contaminants7.80Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot CertifiedFiltration Rate2.33 GPMComponent QualityFairComponent CertificationUnsatisfactorySetupExcellentServicing RequirementsExcellentCosts$0.012/ gallonWarranty Length1 yearShippingFree on orders over $25Returns60 days 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 7.71 Canopy makes a lot of vague but impressive-sounding performance claims, especially regarding how it can improve skin and hair health. We conducted our own contaminant reduction testing to see exactly how the filter altered our water quality, comparing the contaminants detected in our unfiltered and filtered water samples.  Another area that influences the contaminant reduction score is certifications. We also checked to see if the Canopy Shower Filter had been certified by the NSF/ANSI, IAPMO, or the WQA for reducing select contaminants in shower water.  Our Performance Testing Score: 7.91 To keep our testing as fair as possible across the board, we used SimpleLab Tap Score, a laboratory testing service, for all our shower filter contaminant reduction analyses. We took samples of our unfiltered and filtered shower water and sent them to the Tap Score laboratory for comprehensive testing.   Laboratory testing is more comprehensive than DIY test strips. This was important to us as we wanted to achieve the most accurate testing outcomes. Our Tap Score test report listed all the contaminants detected in both water samples, their detection concentrations, and whether or not they were considered a health risk. We compared our results to Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), which are stricter than the MCLs and prioritize human health.  Alongside our laboratory tests, we used the included test strips to detect chlorine in our water, which is highly volatile and doesn’t remain in water long enough for it to be accurately detected at the lab.  We also conducted separate titration tests, so we knew we were getting the most accurate reading of our water hardness in real time.  Note: We tested the Canopy Shower Filter with cold water, which, while not accurate to typical shower water temperature, meant we’d be able to detect disinfection byproducts. These have known health effects when inhaled but dissipate quickly from hot water.  Health-Related Contaminants Score: 7.80 Our Tap Score report showed that more than 10 contaminants with known health effects had been detected in our shower water.  But many of these contaminants, like lead, arsenic, and lithium, aren’t known to have health effects in their “normal” concentrations in shower water. So, we only focused on the contaminants that can be harmful to health in shower water, as a result of dermal exposure or inhalation (rather than ingestion).  5 contaminants with possible health effects were detected in our unfiltered water test:  - Around 2 PPM of chlorine - 5.47 PPB of chloroform - 2.62 PPB of bromodichloromethane - 0.74 PPB of dibromochloromethane - 0.25 PPB of bromochloromethane Chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromochloromethane are all disinfection byproducts. The first three exceeded the Tap Score HGL, meaning they could possibly cause health effects (based on emerging evidence from animal studies) in their detected concentrations. Bromochloromethane was detected below the Reporting Limit, so its safety couldn’t be evaluated in our water.  What were we expecting from the Canopy Shower Filter here? Canopy claims to filter “chlorine, heavy metals, and other contaminants”, but doesn’t specifically mention DBPs.  Starting with the positives, the filter reduced 100% chlorine in our shower water, so it met our basic expectations for a shower filer. But, it didn’t reduce DBPs—in fact, total THMs actually increased by 158%.  Should we be concerned about this increase? We don’t think so: most likely, it’s incidental, due to fluctuations in the DBPs in our water, which simply tells us that the filter was unable to reduce them. This was disappointing to us, given that several of the shower filters we tested had reduced DBPs, so it’s definitely possible.  Unusual Testing Outcomes Aside from its inability to reduce disinfection byproducts, there were some unusual testing outcomes that further contributed to the filter's poorer score in the contaminant reduction category. First, there was a 32% increase in copper and a massive 8,797% increase in zinc in our filtered water (although both were detected at concentrations still within the lab’s HGL). We think these contaminants leached from the KDF media, and while they don’t have known health effects through dermal exposure or inhalation, they still affected our water quality. Our Tap Score test data also reported that fluoride increased by 5,675%, and arsenic by 93%. In this case, we don’t think these came from the filter itself. We tested our filtered water later in the day, so we believe fluoride and arsenic were incidentally higher in this test, especially as we saw similar results with other shower filters that we tested on the same day.  Finally, perhaps the most concerning testing outcome was the 404% increase in lead. This is quite a substantial increase and seems less likely to be incidental, suggesting that lead could have been leaching from the filter media. However, we don’t know this for certain, and we need to do a re-test to see if there’s a pattern in the results.  Lead isn’t known to be dangerous when inhaled, and the skin doesn’t absorb lead so it has no dermal effects, despite its known health effects when ingested in drinking water.  Water Hardness We assessed our before-and-after water hardness by reviewing our lab test and on-site titration test results.  Canopy claims that the Shower Filter can reduce “magnesium (increases hardness of water)” and “calcium carbonate (increases hardness of water)”. Since magnesium and calcium are the two minerals primarily responsible for hard water, we were expecting the Canopy Shower Filter to reduce our water hardness.  In our Tap Score test, our unfiltered water sample had a total hardness reading of 128.19 PPM, or 7.49 GPG, putting it in the “hard” category. The onsite titration test detected a similar hardness of 8 GPG.  Our filtered water test results were interesting, but also disappointing:  - Magnesium wasn’t reduced at all - Calcium increased by 16% - Carbonate did decrease by 69% - Our total hardness increased by 12.45% So what does that mean? The filter has some ability to address temporary hardness, aka carbonate hardness, which can also be removed by heating water. But because of its inability to reduce calcium or magnesium, it clearly does not address permanent water hardness, or non-carbonate hardness, which needs a more specialized approach. Our results didn’t align with Canopy’s claims, and we weren’t exactly surprised. According to the product page, the filter contains granular activated carbon, KDF-55, and calcium sulfite, none of which can address hardness. Only a few filters we tested reduced calcium and magnesium, and these contain an ion exchange resin.  Canopy’s Claims Before we move on, we want to quickly address the contaminants that Canopy claims to reduce in response to the “What does it filter out?” question on the product page FAQ.  Aside from chlorine and hardness, Canopy also says that its Shower Filter also reduces iron, hydrogen sulfide, mercury, chromium, chloramine, and harmful microbes, bacteria, and fungi. Hydrogen sulfide, mercury, chromium, and chloramine weren’t detected in our unfiltered water, so we can’t comment on the filter’s ability to remove these.  As for iron, 0.00072 of this contaminant was detected in both water samples: a 0% reduction There were no “harmful microbes, bacteria, or fungi” in our water, but Canopy shouldn’t say that the filter can reduce these. This actually points to a lack of knowledge about how KDF-55 filter media works. While KDF-55 media does control the buildup of bacteria in the filter itself, it’s not designed to reduce bacteria or any other microorganisms in the filtered water. This is a key difference to understand. Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 Canopy claims that its filters have been tested to NSF 177 Standards, and it’s important not to get confused here: any filter can get tested by anybody to NSF Standards, and this is not the same as an official certification.  For shower filters, we look for proof of a certification to NSF 177, for the reduction of chlorine. We couldn’t find evidence that the Canopy Shower Filter holds a contaminant reduction certification, which is unfortunate given its expensive upfront cost.  🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 We measured Canopy’s flow rate by timing how long it took to fill 2 cups of water from the filtered showerhead. We repeated the test three times, then averaged these timings before converting them into a gallons-per-minute (GPM) flow rate.  The Canopy Showerhead Filter had a filtration rate of 2.33 GPM, based on its ability to fill 2 cups of filtered water in an average time of 3.22 seconds. That made it the fastest-filtering shower filter of all the systems we tested.  This is among the most positive testing outcomes we recorded for Canopy, and we noticed no reduction in our showerhead water pressure after installing the filter. But remember, flow rate isn’t everything. While you obviously don’t want to shower in a trickle of water, it’s important that the water has enough contact with the filter media to effectively reduce contaminants. So, prioritize contaminant reduction over flow rate. 📐 Design Score: 7.20 The Canopy Shower Filter has a unique funnel-shaped design and contains the filter inside the showerhead, which means it has to replace an existing showerhead. We got the static Filtered Showerhead, which connects directly to your shower arm. Canopy also sells a Handheld Showerhead Filter or a Showerhead Bundle containing both filters. The units are available in four finishes:  - Polished chrome - Matte black - Brushed nickel - Brass The filter has a unique design feature: it includes an aroma kit (this is just a felt diffuser that you add essential oil to and hang from the shower), so you get to enjoy a nice smell while you’re showering.  Our assessment in the design category was mostly subjective, and we focused on how the filter looked felt, and functioned in terms of durability and quality. We also looked for evidence of official certifications for materials safety.  Component Quality Score: 8.00 While the Canopy filter has aesthetic appeal, we noted that the unit is made from flimsy plastics and doesn’t feel particularly solid or durable.  In the case of the filter cartridge itself, it looks similar to the cartridge in the Sprite Shower Filter, which costs a quarter of the price. Maybe they’re not the same, but we questioned once again why the Canopy Shower Filter is so expensive when it doesn’t offer anything more than its competitors.  Filter Materials The Canopy filter contains three filtration media:  - Granular activated carbon - KDF-55 - Calcium sulfite These are all commonly used in shower filters and are favored for their chlorine-reduction abilities. We think Canopy could improve the filter by using activated carbon block media, which offers more thorough contaminant removal (including DBPs removal) thanks to its more compact nature.  Materials Safety Certification Score: 6.00 Canopy hasn’t obtained a materials safety certification, which is a shame, but not altogether surprising.  Materials safety certifications aren’t a legal requirement, although it’s good to know that a filter has been tested and approved for design safety.  ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.00 Shower filters are generally quick and easy to install, so we expected the same from Canopy.  The filter earned a high 9.00 score in the setup category because it took less than 5 minutes to install at our shower line. We just unscrewed our existing showerhead and inserted the filter cartridge into the new showerhead, then attached the new showerhead to the shower arm. There’s some plumber’s tape included to secure the filter in place and prevent leaks. We also followed Canopy’s instructions to prime the filter by turning our water on and letting it flush through it for 30 seconds. You can use the filter straight away, and there are no special priming tools or processes required.  🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.50 Canopy also got a good maintenance score because we found the filter easy and affordable to maintain.  Servicing Requirements 9.00 There’s just one filter to replace in the Canopy unit, with a lifespan of 3,000 gallons, which equates to approximately three months. That’s around half the average six-month lifespan claimed by many other shower filter manufacturers—although, of course, the gallon-to-month conversion isn’t 100% accurate and depends on factors including your water quality and usage.  The Canopy model is thoughtfully designed for easy filter replacements with a removable front that pops off, giving you access to the filter cartridge. That saved us the job of having to unscrew the showerhead every time we needed to replace a filter.  Aside from filter changes, we just followed our normal shower cleaning schedule. If you choose to use the scent diffuser; you’ll also need to buy more aromas when the included scent runs out.  Costs Score: 10.00 Canopy’s maintenance costs are affordable when we compare them to the average POU filter, even though it was on the more expensive end compared to many of the other shower filters we tested.  We calculated that replacement filters cost $0.012 per gallon (up to $0.010 more per gallon than similar systems). This is likely due to Canopy’s shorter filter lifespan claims and slightly more expensive replacement filters. 🏢 Company Score: 8.80 Canopy is a newer brand, so we were particularly interested in its company offerings, including its warranty, shipping, and returns policy.  Warranty Score: 8.50 Canopy warrants its shower filter for 1 year, entitling customers to a repair, replacement, or refund (depending on the issue) if a problem is detected that’s covered by the warranty.  This is actually one of the best warranties we’ve come across for a shower filter, although as is typical, the warranty doesn’t cover accidental damage or normal wear and tear.  Learn more about Canopy’s warranty here.  Shipping  Score: 9.00 Canopy offers free shipping to all US territories, but only on orders over $25. This is pretty annoying given that a single-filter replacement subscription costs $25 every 90 days, so you’ll have to pay for shipping each time.  You can get around this by upgrading to the 2-pack filter replacement subscription, which costs $50—but you’ll still receive filters every 90 days, so you’ll end up with twice the amount that you need. Click here for more information on Canopy’s shipping policy.  Returns Score: 9.00 You can return the Canopy Shower Filter for any reason within the first 60 days after your purchase thanks to Canopy’s money-back guarantee. This gives you a good amount of time to try the product and decide whether or not it’s right for you. To return the filter, you’ll need to fill in the return request form on the Canopy website (this requires your order number), and choose whether to exchange the system or return it for a refund. Canopy will pay for your return shipping if you live in the US,  but you’ll need to pay for shipping yourself if you live in Canada.  View Canopy’s 60-day guarantee here. 💰 Value For Money So, with all aspects of its performance in mind, do we think the Canopy Shower Filter offers good value for money? The short answer is no.  While the filter has an attractive design, and the aroma diffuser is a nice touch, we weren’t impressed with its inability to reduce disinfection byproducts and its misleading hardness reduction claims, not to mention the concerning lead increase in our filtered water.   Our main issue with Canopy is that there’s nothing to justify the filter’s $150 price tag. It doesn’t perform better than the filters selling for half its price, it’s not certified for reducing any contaminants, and its flimsy design quality doesn’t bode well for durability.  Ultimately, you might decide to buy this filter if you’re just looking for an attractive showerhead that can do a bit more than your normal shower. It’s worth considering if you’re only bothered about addressing chlorine and/or you like the novelty appeal of the aroma diffuser.  But if you’re looking for a filter that addresses disinfection byproducts and has a certified performance, we recommend the Weddell Duo, which was the best shower filter we tested. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

The British Berkefeld is a stainless-steel gravity water filter system that uses ceramic shells filled with other filter media to reduce common tap water contaminants. Overall Score: 8.64 Ultra Sterasyl What We Like: NSF certified to reduce select contaminants Holds a few NSF performance certifications Realistic filter capacity/lifespan claims compared to competitors Filters don’t need to be primed (unlike similar brands) Sturdy, certified stainless steel construction More affordable than other models Overall Score: 8.55 Ultra Fluoride What We Like: Eliminated fluoride in our testing Realistic filter capacity/lifespan claims Filters don’t need to be primed Sturdy stainless steel More affordable than other models For this British Berkefeld review, we tested two individual vessels at the: one containing the Ultra Sterasyl filters and one containing the Ultra Fluoride filters. We conducted both tests at the same time in a home with chlorinated well water in Colorado, with a couple of key goals:  - To evaluate the filter’s performance across our data-driven testing categories, including contaminant reduction, filtration speed, and setup & maintenance.  - To compare the filter’s performance in these categories to similar systems on the market, including the Big Berkey, Alexapure Pro, and Waterdrop King Tank. In our testing, the system reduced most of the contaminants in our water, but we experienced some issues with leaching from the fluoride filters. While installation was simpler than other systems because we didn’t have to prime the filters, the speed of filtration was incredibly slow.  Note: British Berkefeld and Berkey are NOT the same brand, despite their similar names. Berkey and British Berkefeld (also known as Doulton Water Filters) are two separate brands. The filters in the British Berkefeld and Berkey models have different designs and the systems have achieved different outcomes in our testing. See our comparison review of Berkey vs British Berkefeld for more information. 📊 Our Testing Data We obtained our scoring data by conducting our own testing to evaluate the British Berkefeld’s performance, ease of use, design quality, and overall value for money. To support our subjective analysis, we also obtained objective data from our before-and-after water quality tests, as well as relevant data from company websites and official testing organizations. Below, you’ll find our scores across our 6 testing categories for the British Berkefeld. Factor Ultra SterasylUltra FluorideContaminant Reduction8.568.40Filtration Rate6.506.50Design10.0010.00Setup9.009.00Maintenance9.259.25Company9.109.10 This next table shows the testing data from each individual test we conducted. Factor Ultra Sterasyl Ultra FluorideWinnerOverall Score8.648.55Ultra SterasylHealth Related Contaminants8.508.60Ultra FlouideAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 401NoneUltra SterasylFiltration Rate0.3 GPH0.42 GPHUltra FlouideComponent QualityExceptionalExceptionalTieComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI CertifiedNoneUltra SterasylSetupExcellentExcellentTieServicing RequirementsGoodGoodTieCosts$0.09/ gal$0.16/ galUltra SterasylWarranty LengthLifetimeLifetimeTieShippingFree Shipping on orders over $99 to the contiguous USFree Shipping on orders over $99 to the contiguous USTieReturns30 days30 daysTie 🚰 Contaminant Reduction We analyzed our water quality before and after filtering it through the British Berkefeld system with a testing service called SimpleLab Tap Score. This helped us to determine the filter’s ability to address our water quality concerns, and how our results compared to the manufacturer’s claims.   We conducted two tests for the British Berkefeld at the same time:  - One with the Ultra Sterasyl filter - One with the Ultra Fluoride filter The Ultra Fluoride filter has the same design as the Ultra Sterasyl filter, but with an upgrade (it contains activated carbon and actived alumina) that enables it to reduce fluoride.  We awarded British Berkefeld two separate scores—one for each of the filters, based on their different outcomes—for contaminant reduction. Our Performance Testing To test the British Berkefeld system, we used our standard POU filter testing process. This involved: - Filling a large bucket with water from our faucet. - Taking the unfiltered water samples from the bucket.  - Filling both Berkefeld systems with the remaining water in the bucket.  - Waiting for the water to filter, then taking the filtered water samples from the spigot.  We then shipped our samples to the lab for professional testing.  To replicate real use conditions as closely as possible in our testing, we used the system extensively before conducting our tests and filtered approximately 30 gallons through each filter (the Ultra Sterasyl and Ultra Fluoride filter).  We evaluated our results by comparing the data in our Tap Score interactive reports. To determine the safety of the contaminants detected in our water, we compared their concentrations to the Tap Score HGL (Health Guideline Level), which prioritizes human health and is much stricter than the federal legal limits.  Health-Related Contaminants For reducing contaminants with health effects in our water, the British Berkefeld achieved a score of 8.50 with the Ultra Sterasyl filter, and 8.60 with the Ultra Fluoride filter.  Before it was filtered, our water contained 8 contaminants with potential health effects, with two of these—uranium and fluoride—detected in concentrations exceeding the HGL.  Also present in trace amounts were copper, nitrate, strontium, sulfate, barium, and molybdenum. There are several possible health concerns associated with exposure to these contaminants, including: - Developmental toxicity - Reproductive effects - Neurological impacts - Skeletal effects - Blood issues - Gastrointestinal problems - Kidney and liver damage Our water also contained around 1 PPM of chlorine, which is considered an aesthetic contaminant in trace levels below 4 PPM but can have health effects when present in higher concentrations.  Ultra Sterasyl Filter Post-filtration with the Ultra Sterasyl filter, our water contained no uranium, showing that the filter had completely reduced it by 100%. Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly, given the fluoride filter upgrade), the concentration of fluoride in our water remained the same, at 1 PPM. This is the main reason why the filter didn’t score higher in this category.  As for the other contaminants detected, copper and molybdenum were also eliminated completely, while nitrate was reduced by 70%, strontium by just 2%, and barium by 8%.  Ultra Fluoride Filter Our results were similar post-filtration using the Ultra Fluoride filter, but with two key differences:  - This time, fluoride was completely eliminated, as we’d expected.  - 0.689 PPM of aluminum (just above the HGL of 0.6 PPM) appeared in our water, negatively affecting its score in this category.  We think the aluminum appeared in the form of activated alumina, which is used in the water treatment industry for its fluoride-reduction capability. This would make sense given that only the Ultra Fluoride filter added aluminum to our water.  Note that we tested the filter after we’d already filtered around 30 gallons of water through it. If we tested the filter brand new, this detection may have been even higher. But if we tested it after filtering more water through, it may be lower.  Aesthetic Contaminants When it came to reducing aesthetic contaminants, both filters performed the same. The only aesthetic contaminant detected in our water was chlorine, and this was completely eliminated by the Ultra Sterasyl and Ultra Fluoride filters.  Aluminum can be considered an aesthetic contaminant due to its corrosive properties. However, it wasn’t detected in high enough concentrations to pull down the aesthetic score for our water treated by the Ultra Fluoride filter. Minerals & Ions While we don’t score water filters for their ability to change the concentrations of mineral ions in our water, we still want to highlight some unusual findings we found in this category. With the Ultra Sterasyl filter, magnesium increased by 41%, carbonate by 1,188%, sulfate by 14%, and potassium by around 1000%.  When we tested the Ultra Fluoride filter, magnesium increased by just under 60%, carbonate by 188%, and sulfate by 303% (this time, no potassium was detected).  Our hypothesis is that these minerals and ions likely came from the filter’s ceramic shell. None were detected at concentrations above the HGL, and minerals like potassium and magnesium can be beneficial in trace amounts in our water—but this is still a testing outcome to be aware of.  Performance Certifications If you only want to consider buying water filters that have been certified, here’s some important information to know: only the British Berkefeld Ultra Sterasyl filter has obtained several NSF certifications. The Ultra Fluoride filter hasn’t been certified.  This affected their scores: while the Ultra Sterasyl filter was awarded an 8.50, the Ultra Fluoride filter obtained the lowest score of 6.00.  The Ultra Sterasyl filter has been certified to reduce 4 out of the 14 contaminants that the manufacturer claims it can reduce: particulates, cysts, turbidity, and microplastics. The certifications it holds are: - NSF 42, for the reduction of contaminants with aesthetic effects - NSF 53, for contaminants with health effects - NSF 401, for the reduction of emerging compounds and incidental contaminants British Berkefeld also claims that this filter can reduce PFAS, klebsiella (a type of bacteria*), E-coli, chlorine, heavy metals, lead, glyphosate, pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals, but it hasn’t been certified for reducing these. This is a great start, but we’d like to see the filter certified for the reduction of more of the contaminants on this list of claims. We’d also like to see the fluoride filter get a certification too.  *Although the British Berkefeld is, according to the manufacturer, capable of reducing bacteria, the manufacturer states that the system shouldn’t be used with untreated water from natural sources like lakes and rivers. Just something to be aware of as there’s a lot of misinformation online about this.  🚦Filtration Rate Gravity water filtration systems filter water slower than those installed inline with your water line. These filters use gravity to pull water slowly down through the filter into a bottom chamber.   But even for a gravity filter, the British Berkefeld is slow. In fact, it had the slowest filtration rate of all the stainless steel countertop water filter systems we’ve tested so far. Because of this it received a low score of 6.50 in this category. ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateUltra Sterasyl6.500.3 GPHUltra Fluoride6.500.42 GPH We tested the flow rate for the system with both filters, obtaining slightly different results for each: - The Ultra Sterasyl filter had a flow rate of 0.3 GPH (gallons per hour), based on its ability to filter 2.25 gallons of water in 7.5 hours.  - The Ultra Fluoride filter’s flow rate was 0.42 GPH, as it filtered 3.17 gallons in 7.5 hours.  While the ultra fluoride filter was slightly faster, this still isn’t great. To reiterate, it took 7.5 hours to fully filter water from the top to bottom chambers. This didn’t improve after filtering 30 gallons of water.  Other gravity systems we tested had a flow rate of 0.7 GPH, around twice the speed of the British Berkefeld.  The manufacturer has said that pore size is the reason why the British Berkefeld filters have slower flow rates than other black filters. According to one US distributor, the Ultra Sterasyl and Ultra Fluoride filters have smaller pores, which means they’re doing a more thorough job of filtering water—at the expense of filtration speed.  📐 Design We scored the British Berkefeld on design based on the quality of its components and whether or not it had any certifications for design safety.  ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyUltra Sterasyl10.00ExceptionalNSF/ANSI CertifiedUltra Fluoride10.00ExceptionalNot certified The system is a cylindrical countertop gravity water filter with a stainless steel exterior, with a few notable differences compared to other brands (discussed later). There are two chambers, one stacked on top of the other, separated by a set of filters.  You can use a maximum of four filters in the system. If you use a larger unit with just two filters, the holes for the other two filters are blocked up with with the two pre-installed plugs. These are higher-quality than others we’ve tested and seem unlikely to allow unfiltered water to leak into the lower chamber.  Like all stainless steel gravity filters, the British Berkefeld’s design is functional first. If you’re looking for a sleek, modern unit that blends in with your kitchen, this system might not do it for you. Models & Sizes The British Berkefeld comes in 6 sizes, from the smallest 0.25-gallon Baron system designed for portability, to the largest 6-gallon King Berkefeld unit.  We tested two units:  - The 2.25-gallon unit (with Ultra Sterasyl filters installed). This size is the most popular option for small-to-medium households.  - The 3.17-gallon unit (with Ultra Fluoride filters installed). This size is better suited to medium-to-large households with higher water usage requirements.  The manufacturer sells a glass version of the stainless steel system, which holds 1.85 gallons of water and lets you see the water as it filters through the system. There’s also the Heritage Gravity Water Filter, with a vintage-style design inspired by the manufacturer’s original ceramic gravity filters from the 1820s. Below shows the different sizes and models currently available in the British Berkefeld range.  - The Baron Berkefeld (0.25 gallons) - The Duchess Berkefeld (1.58 gallons) - The Duke Berkefeld (2.25 gallons) - The Prince Berkefeld (3.17 gallons) - The Queen Berkefeld (4.5 gallons) - The King Berkefeld (6 gallons) Component Quality The British Berkefed’s component quality impressed us in our testing. It’s made from 304 stainless steel, giving it a sturdy, durable build that feels like it should last a long time and withstand a few bumps and knocks in storage or transport.   The older model has a cheap plastic spigot, but we were pleased to see that the new one comes with a stainless steel spigot, limiting the filtered water’s contact with plastic. The new model also has an embossed logo, which is a nice touch.  Design Longevity The British Berkefeld uses materials that have a track record for their durability. 304 stainless steel is ideal for water storage thanks to its resistance to corrosion. We were unable to find a definite minimum lifespan for this material, but most manufacturers claim that 304 stainless steel lasts at least 20 years.  We didn’t notice any signs of wear or rusting in our testing. The unit’s use of plastic components is limited, although the filters themselves have plastic parts. According to British Berkefeld, all plastic used in the systems is BPA-free food-grade polypropylene.  Design Flaws & Setbacks We experienced the same issues with the British Berkefeld as with similar systems. Water continues to flow through the filters even when the lower chamber is full, which can cause overflows if you allow this to happen. We also couldn’t see how much water was left in the bottom chamber. That meant we needed to remove the top chamber to check how much water was in the bottom one to make sure could refill without causing an overflow.  British Berkefeld sells a glass or stainless steel sight glass spigot that eliminates the need to disassemble the system to check water levels. We just wish this was an included feature and not sold for an extra $35-$65.  Certification British Berkefeld has obtained an NSF 372 certification for lead-free design, specifically for the vessel containing the Ultra Sterasyl filter.  The British Berkefeld is only certified with one of its two filter offerings. However, regardless of the filters it’s used with, the vessel itself doesn’t change.  This puts British Berkefeld ahead of many competitors—of the similar systems we’ve tested, the Waterdrop King Tank is the only other product with an NSF 372 certification. Filter Materials The Ultra Sterasyl filters used in the British Berkefeld have a microfilter ceramic outer shell, containing granular activated carbon and “heavy metal removal media” (possibly KDF). The Ultra Fluoride filters have exactly the same design, with one difference: they also contain a fluoride reduction media (activated alumina).  All these filter media are commonly used for treating drinking water and are considered safe for the purpose. Though activated alumina is commonly used to treat fluoride in water, we remain uncertain about its potential long term health effects as we’ve noticed it tends to leach into the treated effluent water. The manufacturer points out that at least the fluoride filter reduction media doesn’t sit in plastic filters in the clean filtered water because it’s part of the main filters. But we think this image below (found on their product page) is a little misleading. It seems to imply that activated alumina leaching will only occur if the filters are sitting in the filtered water. Based on our test results, this isn’t true. ⚙️ Setup We awarded the British Berkefeld’s setup score based on the out of the box assembly process, which we were pleased with. ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeUltra Sterasyl9.0020 minutesUltra Fluoride9.0020 minutes Compared to many similar systems, it was much quicker and easier to prepare for use, and there was one key reason for this: we didn’t have to prime the filters.  Systems like Berkey, Waterdrop, and Boroux have frustratingly long priming processes, but the Berkefeld’s filters don’t require priming, saving you from the hassle.   To assemble the unit, we followed the basic instructions in the user manual, which involved attaching the spigot, filters, and lid handle, then placing the top chamber onto the bottom.  🔧 Maintenance The British Berkefeld’s easy filter setup also contributed to its high maintenance score of 9.25. ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsUltra Sterasyl9.25Good$0.09/galUltra Fluoride9.25Good$0.16/gal Servicing Requirements Our main servicing task for the British Berkefeld is replacing the filters. This looks like it’ll be an easy job* because, as with the initial setup, we can install the new filters straight away without priming.  The manufacturer recommends cleaning the filters to extend their lifespan. If the system’s flow rate dips noticeably, cleaning the filters will remove some of the sediment from the filter’s ceramic surface, making it easier for water to pass through.  This is an easy job that involves using a Scotch Brite pad or stiff toothbrush to scrub the filters while holding them under cold running water.  Additionally, we also washed out the top and bottom chambers weekly, which can be tricky given the bulk of the unit and depending on the size of your sink. *We haven’t had to replace the filters yet. Costs To determine the value of the filters in the British Berkefeld, we calculated their ongoing cost (based on their price and capacity).   At the time of our calculation, two Ultra Sterasyl filters cost $78 and can filter up to 800 gallons of water, giving them an ongoing cost of $0.0975 per gallon.  Two Ultra Fluoride filters have a slightly higher cost of $130. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

The AquaBliss shower filter certainly sounds impressive with its 12-stage filtration process, and we were keen to see how it performed with our own hands-on testing. This review was formed as a discussion of all our testing data, including the objective figures we obtained from testing for contaminants removed, flow rate, and ongoing cost, as well as our subjective notes on the filter’s design, ease of setup and maintenance, and overall value for money. Overall Score: 8.25 7.71 Contaminant Reduction 7.20 Design 9.50 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 9.00 Setup 8.65 Company What We Like Affordable upfront & ongoing cost Good flow rate Easy to install & maintain Decent 1-year warranty & 30-day guarantee What We Don’t Like The only shower filter we tested that didn’t eliminate chlorine Uses misleading certification language Poor DBP reduction Price$35.99Contaminants Reduced2+Certifications- Not CertifiedProcessActivated Carbon + Calcium Sulfite + KDFFilter Capacity10,000 gallonsAnnual Cost~$71.98 - $107.97Warranty12 Months 📊 Scoring Data The AquaBliss SF100 Shower Filter is one of the most affordable shower filters we tested, costing just over $35. But affordability isn’t necessarily an advantage if the value for money isn’t there, and that’s what we were aiming to deduce from our testing. We analyzed the system across our 6 key scoring categories, then combined and averaged the scores into an overall performance score. The table below breaks down our testing data. CriteriaResultsOverall Score8.25Health Related Contaminants7.80Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot Certified Filtration Rate2.50 GPMComponent QualityFairComponent CertificationNot Certified SetupExcellentServicing RequirementsExcellentCosts$0.002/gallonWarranty Length12 MonthsShippingFree on orders over $20Returns30 days 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 7.71 Our scoring system is the most heavily weighted by a filter’s performance in the “contaminant reduction” testing category. We test our own water before and after filtration to see how a filter’s performance compares to data shared by the manufacturer.  A subsection of this category looks at whether or not a filter has been certified by an official testing organization, such as the NSF/ANSI, IAPMO, or the WQA.  Our Performance Testing Score: 7.91 We tested our water filtered by the AquaBliss SF100 using a service called SimpleLab Tap Score. We received a kit for taking our samples (one before filtration and one directly from the filtered showerhead), and SimpleLab delivered our results in a comprehensive, interactive test report.  Our kit also came with a chlorine test strip (chlorine detection is best done as soon as possible because the chemical dissipates quickly once it comes into contact with air). Additionally, we conducted a titration test separately to get a more accurate, real-time understanding of the hardness of our unfiltered and filtered water.  Before we share our results, it’s helpful for you to understand more about our testing conditions:  - First, we decided to test the AquaBliss SF100 with cold water. While this isn’t a realistic representation of how most of us shower, it was really important that we could get an accurate measurement of the disinfection byproducts in our shower water, since these have known health effects when inhaled in water vapor. DBPs are highly volatile and dissipate quickly from hot water, hence why we tested with cold water to obtain the most accurate data possible.  - Second, while our water contained more than 10 contaminants with known health effects, we only focused on those that can be harmful to health in shower water, either due to inhalation or dermal exposure (rather than ingestion). These contaminants were chlorine, disinfection byproducts, and water hardness.  Note: Tap Score allows you to measure your results against different health standards, including the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Tap Score’s own Health Guideline Levels (HGLs). We decided to compare our results to the Tap Score HGLs, since these are stricter than the EPA’s MCLs and prioritize human health. Health-Related Contaminants Score: 7.70 When it came to reducing health-related contaminants in our water, the AquaBliss Shower Filter was a bit of a letdown. Before we assess our results, let’s discuss what we were dealing with in our unfiltered water.  Our Tap Score test detected four disinfection byproducts in the trihalomethanes (THMs) category in our water sample:  - 5.47 PPB of chloroform - 2.62 PPB of bromodichloromethane - 0.74 PPB of dibromochloromethane - 0.25 PPB of bromochloromethane The first three were present in concentrations exceeding the lab’s HGL, meaning they all posed a potential health risk. Bromochloromethane was detected in concentrations below the Reporting Limit, so its safety in our water couldn’t be evaluated.  Good to know: A 2020 study has been conducted into the possible health effects of DBPs, specifically THMs, in shower water. Scientists deduced that THMs exposure in shower vapor could increase the potential for “cancer and non-cancer risks” when inhaled.  AquaBliss claims to  “effectively reduce dirt, chlorine, trihalomethanes (THMs), and more”—but how did it perform in our testing? Well, unfortunately, the SF100 ended up being the only shower filter we tested that didn’t even reduce 100% of chlorine (it only reduced it by 75%, and 0.5 PPM remained in our filtered water).  This was confusing to us given that the filter reportedly contains a blend of three types of media that are all generally very effective at removing chlorine: calcium sulfite, redox media, and activated carbon. Interestingly, Aquabliss sells two similar shower filter models that are reportedly more effective at removing chlorine. We’re considering testing one of these to see if it’s capable of reducing 100% chlorine, as we’d expect.  The filter also didn’t reduce THMs, despite AquaBliss’ claims. We only saw an incidental reduction of just under 6%, from 8.83 PPM to 8.31 PPM. Despite its extensive filtration media, we think the filter’s lack of a solid carbon block filter is the main reason why it can’t effectively reduce disinfection byproducts.  Water Hardness To measure the differences in our water hardness pre- and post-filtration, we used data from our Tap Score lab test and our more precise on-site titration test. Here’s how the results compared:  - In our Tap Score test report, our unfiltered water had a total hardness reading of 128.19 PPM, or 7.49 GPG, putting it in the “hard” category. - Our on-site titration test detected a water hardness of 8 GPG.  Note: while hard water isn’t dangerous to health in the same way as disinfection byproducts, it can still have mild-to-moderate skin and hair effects, especially for people with existing skin conditions like eczema.  What were we expecting from AquaBliss? The manufacturer claims the filter “Reduces Contaminants to Make Water Feel Softer”, and “helps control scale”, so we were anticipating at least a slight reduction in the calcium and magnesium minerals in our water.  So our results were a little disappointing: - In our Tap Score test, the total hardness of our water had dropped by less than 1%. - Hardness remained the same, at 8 GPG, in our on-site titration test. This wasn’t altogether surprising given that AquaBliss doesn’t mention the addition of an ion exchange media, which is needed to remove hardness minerals, in its filter.  Minerals & pH Balance While the possible increase in healthy minerals and alterations to our water’s pH balance didn’t affect our testing score, we still want to discuss them here since AquaBliss claims that the SF100 has these abilities.  Specifically, the company says the filter “Infuses High-Quality Minerals — Get Gorgeous Skin, Hair, and Nails”, and “Improves PH Balance — Soothe Dry Itchy Skin and Reduce Dandruff and Eczema”.  In terms of pH, our post-filtration results showed that this was reduced by around 7%, from 8.39 to 7.80. So no substantial changes—but perhaps this was because the pH of our unfiltered water was only slightly alkaline anyway, and our results would have been more apparent if it was significantly higher or lower.  Alternatively, it’s possible that the filter can’t actually change pH, which seems more likely given that it didn’t affect the mineral concentrations that contribute to pH. We wouldn’t know without conducting another more specific test.  As for mineral infusion, AquaBliss doesn’t explicitly state exactly which minerals the filter adds to water. We only know that it contains “mineralized beads” that “release beneficial minerals”, as well as vitamin C. Our own testing was possibly limited (depending on the minerals the filter is intended to remove) as it only detected calcium and magnesium minerals, which didn’t increase. Unexpected Outcomes We noticed a couple of unexpected outcomes in our test results that we want to mention here.  As we mentioned, we focused only on the contaminants that could have health effects in shower water. However, we think it’s still worth mentioning increases in contaminants that aren’t known to be harmful in shower water, since they can possibly be related to the filter design itself.  First, a number of metals, including lithium, arsenic, vanadium, and molybdenum, actually increased post-filtration. We think this is likely incidental, caused by fluctuations of these metals in our water supply between our initial test and our filtered water test.  We also saw a substantial 3227.75% increase in zinc, from 0.00919 PPM to 0.30582 PPM. We think this is likely coming from the KDF media, which is typically made from a copper-zinc alloy.  We’d need to retest our water to confirm these hypotheses.  Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 Shower filter manufacturers can obtain an NSF 177 performance certification, which involves getting their filters professionally tested and deemed capable of meeting NSF requirements for chlorine reduction. Manufacturers don’t need to be certified in order to make contaminant reduction claims, but a lot of people (including us) find it reassuring to know that a filter has official, unbiased independent performance testing.  The AquaBliss Shower Filter isn’t performance certified, so it received the lowest score in this testing sub-category. This is despite misleading claims from AquaBliss that the filter is “certified” on the product page. 🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 We measured the SF100 filter’s flow rate by timing how long it took to filter 2 cups of water. We repeated the test three times in total and recorded the average time from all three.  It actually had one of the slowest flow rates of all the shower filters we tested, coming in at 1.50 gallons per minute (the other filters had flow rates ranging from 1.43 to 2.33 GPM).  That said, this is still a good flow rate for a shower filter and we didn’t notice a reduction in our water pressure after installing it.   Information about the filter’s maximum flow rate isn’t available online. When we emailed customer service, a rep told us that the filter’s maximum flow rate was 2.50 GPM. 📐 Design Score: 7.20 The SF100 is one of AquaBliss’ four shower filter offerings. Its defining feature, which isn’t available in any of AquaBliss’ other models, is its vitamin- and mineral-infusion media.  It’s an inline filter that’s designed to be installed with an existing shower head, and is compatible with all kinds of showers, including fixed, rain, and handheld showers.  The filter sits inside a cylindrical unit that attaches to your shower arm. You can buy the unit in five finishes:  - Chrome - Brushed nickel - Oil-rubbed bronze - Matte black - Matte gold In terms of appearance, it’s one of the less attractive shower filters currently available, prioritizing functionality and practicality over style.  Component Quality Score: 8.00 The SF100 didn’t particularly impress us with its component quality, and we noted that, in terms of its build and feel, its design was flimsier compared to most of the other shower filters we tested. This makes us uncertain about its long-term durability.  We were concerned that there was a design issue when we installed the filter because it leaked initially. But we realized this was actually caused by our own error: the housing wasn’t completely tight, and the leaking stopped once we had tightened it. Filter Materials The AquaBliss filter uses a blend of 12 filtration media: - Ultra-fine stainless steel mesh  - Micro-porous PP cotton - Calcium sulfite  - Redox media (KDF) - Activated carbon  - Mineralized beads  - Zeolite ceramic beads - Ceramic Vitamin C - Tourmaline  - Magnetic energy  - Micro-porous PP cotton  - Ultra-fine stainless steel mesh  We’ve seen a few manufacturers employ the “abundance” technique, aiming to entice customers by demonstrating that their filters contain more media (and build up their lists with vague features like “magnetic energy”) and are therefore more capable than competing systems.  Unfortunately, as we’ve already discussed, our test results didn’t demonstrate that the filter had any additional abilities to remove contaminants or enhance our filtered water with vitamins or minerals, despite AquaBliss’ claims.  Materials Safety Certification Score: 6.00 AquaBliss hasn’t obtained a materials safety certification, so we assigned it the lowest score of 6.00 in this category. Again, these certifications aren’t a legal requirement, but they help to reassure us that a filter’s materials and components have been tested and deemed to be compliant with NSF standards for materials safety.  ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.00 Ease of setup is something that AquaBliss gets right, and the process was as simple as screwing the filter onto our shower arm and attaching our existing shower head.  You don’t need tools or materials for setup (aside from plumber’s tape), and there’s no time-consuming filter priming process. We just had to rinse the filter under warm running water for 60 seconds, to remove any loose carbon dust, before installing it. 🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.50 AquaBliss also impressed us in the maintenance category, with easy, low-cost filter change requirements, awarding it a high score in this category. Servicing Requirements 9.00 The filter in the SF100 lasts up to 4-6 months, depending on your water quality and your shower times, so maintenance is a pretty infrequent requirement.  We found it easy to replace the filters by simply unscrewing the casing, sliding out the existing shower filter cartridge, and slotting the new one in its place. Simple maintenance is our expectation for shower filters, so we were pleased that AquaBliss didn’t let us down in this category. Costs Score: 10.00 As for maintenance costs, the AquaBliss Shower Filter is one of the most affordable of all the shower filters we tested.  It has an ongoing cost of just 0.002/ gallon, based on AquaBliss’ filter lifespan claims and the price of replacement filters on the manufacturer’s website. 🏢 Company Score: 8.65 AquaBliss is one of the more established shower filter companies, so we expected it to offer a decent warranty, as well as good returns and shipping policies. Here, we evaluated the company behind the product.  Warranty Score: 8.50 AquaBliss offers a 12-month warranty, which is one of the longest we’ve seen for a shower filter.  The warranty guarantees that the SF100 is “free from defects in material and workmanship”, for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase.  To be eligible for a refund or replacement under the warranty, you need to send back the defective part(s) along with your proof of purchase.  Learn more about AquaBliss’ warranty here.  Shipping  Score: 9.50 You’ll receive free shipping when you spend more than $20 on orders on the AquaBliss website. That means you won’t have to pay for shipping on your initial purchase, but you will if you choose to buy replacement filters (which cost less than $20 each) individually. Returns Score: 8.00 AquaBliss’ 30-day returns policy is pretty good, especially given its affordable upfront cost, allowing you to try the filter and see if it works for you within the first 30 days after your purchase. If you don’t like it for whatever reason, you can return it for a refund or replacement. You’ll need to contact AquaBliss with your proof of purchase and the reason for your return.  There’s some fine print to be aware of, including that the filter needs to be undamaged and in its original condition for you to be eligible for a full refund.  View AquaBliss’ refund and returns policy here. 💰 Value For Money Now we’ve shared all our testing data, do we think the AquaBliss SF100 is worth the money? The short answer is no. While the filter might be one of the most affordable of the bunch we tested, the fact that it didn’t even remove 100% chlorine in our testing made it a big letdown. We also don’t like the fact that AquaBliss is deceiving customers by making inaccurate claims about its ability to address water hardness issues.  Given that the filter comprises so many filtration media, we expected more. At the very least, we expected complete chlorine removal, but we didn’t even get that. And the fact that the filter doesn’t even slightly reduce DPBs, which are commonly found in chlorinated water supplies, means it’s failing to perform an important duty.   Are there any exceptions here? Perhaps the filter could be an option if you know for certain that your water contains little-to-no DPBs but you still want an affordable solution for reducing (albeit not necessarily removing) chlorine. But in our opinion, it’s better to spend twice as much on the Weddell Duo, which is the only shower filter we tested to actually address DBPs effectively. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

Clearly Filtered is one of the most expensive water filter pitcher brands, while PUR is one of the most affordable. But how do these systems compare performance-wise, and which offers the best value for money?  We’ve put the Clearly Filtered and PUR Plus pitchers head to head, using our own testing data to evaluate both systems in this review. Overall Score: 8.78 Clearly Filtered Best For: Reduces the most contaminants Highest quality design Better warranty, shipping, & returns offerings Overall Score: 7.08 PUR Plus Best For: Reduces contaminants without leaching any unwanted impurities Certified to reduce more contaminants More affordable option In our testing, Clearly Filtered had the sturdiest design and reduced many more contaminants than PUR, but it also introduced an unwanted contaminant. The PUR Plus pitcher reduced fewer contaminants but didn’t leach any impurities into our filtered water. It’s also certified to reduce more contaminants than the CF pitcher. 📊 Our Testing Data At Water Filter Guru, our extensive reviewing process involves using our own test data to assess water filters across 6 key performance categories. Here’s how Clearly Filtered PUR compare in these categories.  FactorClearly FilteredPUR PlusContaminant Reduction8.245.28Filtration Rate10.0010.00Design9.708.80Setup9.509.50Maintenance8.759.75Company9.007.50 Our scoring system utilizes data from over a dozen testing sub-categories. We’ve shared a breakdown of this data in the table below, so you can see exactly how we reached the overall scores for both pitchers. FactorClearly FilteredPUR PlusWinnerOverall Score8.787.08Clearly FilteredHealth Related Contaminants8.304.50Clearly FilteredAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.50Clearly FilteredPerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42 & 53NSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 401PURFiltration Rate2.27 GPH2.82 GPHPURComponent QualityOutstandingFairClearly FilteredComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53, & 372NSF/ANSI CertifiedClearly FilteredSetupOutstandingOutstandingTieServicing RequirementsOutstandingOutstandingTieCosts$0.55/ gal$0.27/ galPURWarranty Length2 years90 daysClearly FilteredShippingFree shipping to all statesDepends on the distributorClearly FilteredReturns30 daysNoneClearly Filtered 🚰 Contaminant Reduction We start our testing with the most important measure of performance: contaminant reduction.  We used a water quality test to find out which contaminants were present in our unfiltered water. We filtered it through the Clearly Filtered and PUR systems, then tested a water sample from each pitcher.  The overall score for the filters was also influenced by whether or not they had obtained an official performance certification from the WQA, NSF, or IAPMO for their contaminant reduction claims. Our Lab Test Results We tested the PUR Plus and Clearly Filtered pitchers using the same water source: treated groundwater from a shared well. We used SimpleLab Tap Score laboratory tests to ensure a highly accurate contaminant detection process.  Our results were highlighted in our Tap Score interactive reports. We chose to compare the concentrations of the contaminants detected with Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), which prioritize human health and are stricter than the EPA MCL.   The table below lists the contaminants detected in our unfiltered water and both filtered water samples.  The Clearly Filtered got the best score by a mile here because it did a much better job at reducing the contaminants present in our water.  Health-Related Contaminants First, we evaluated the pitchers’ reduction of health-related contaminants in our water, which we were the keenest to remove.  8 health-related contaminants were detected, including fluoride and uranium, which were both detected at levels above the Tap Score HGL.  The table below highlights all the contaminants with health effects in our water. The Clearly Filtered pitcher reduced 100% of uranium and fluoride, as well as 100% copper, 86% barium, 67% strontium, 53% molybdenum, 11% nitrate, and 3% sulfate. It was one of the top-performing water filter pitchers we tested for reducing health-related contaminants.  But one testing outcome pulled down the filter’s score in this category. 0.0054 PPM of cobalt was detected in our filtered water - an unexpected result given that the pitcher has been third-party tested to reduce this heavy metal by >98.31%. Cobalt wasn’t detected in our unfiltered water, so we think it must have come from the filter media.  The PUR Plus pitcher actually did better than Clearly Filtered at reducing strontium by 100% and nitrate by 42%. But otherwise, it didn’t quite match up to the CF pitcher, reducing copper by 98%, uranium by 80%, molybdenum by 23%, and sulfate and barium by just 4%. It was unable to reduce the fluoride at all. Does that mean the Clearly Filtered pitcher is more capable of reducing health-related contaminants overall compared to the PUR Plus pitcher? We can’t say this for certain because we’ve only tested both systems with a single water source. All we know is that the CF pitcher is better at reducing the specific contaminants that were found in our water.  PUR doesn’t claim that its filter can reduce most of the impurities detected in our water. Judging by the contaminants it’s certified to reduce, we think it’s a better choice for filtering treated water that isn't necessarily from a groundwater source. Regardless of your water source, it’s really important to test it for contaminants to make sure that a specific filter can effectively address the impurities present.  Aesthetic Contaminants Clearly Filtered and PUR both eliminated aesthetic contaminants in our water.  The Tap Score kit we used came with a chlorine test strip, which detected around 1 PPM of free chlorine in our tap water.  After filtering through both the Clearly Filtered and PUR Plus pitchers, our water contained 0 PPM. Both filters have an activated carbon element, which is widely considered the best method of addressing chlorine tastes and odors in water.  Minerals & Ions We wondered whether the Clearly Filtered and PUR Plus pitchers might also reduce contaminants that don’t have health effects, like our water’s natural minerals.   Clearly Filtered states that its pitcher targets harmful contaminants “without removing beneficial minerals”. So we were surprised to see that it reduced: - Calcium by 32% - Magnesium by 64% - Sodium by 42% We saw a small 2.5% increase in potassium, so we think the filter might use a potassium-loaded cation exchange resin. However, this increase was too small for us to say for certain.  The PUR Plus pitcher reduced even greater concentrations of healthy minerals:  - Magnesium by 95% - Calcium by 96% Our water’s sodium concentration increased by 388%, from 9.63 PPM to 47 PPM - a sure sign that the filter uses a sodium-loaded cation exchange resin. The filter appears to be exchanging sodium ions for unwanted ions - and calcium and magnesium ions were also reduced as a side effect.  Certifications We’re only able to prove whether or not a water filter can address the contaminants detected in our own water.  For that reason, we also look for official performance certifications, which confirm a filter’s contaminant reduction abilities beyond the scope of our own testing.  Both Clearly Filtered and PUR have obtained performance certifications to support their contaminant reduction claims. But the PUR Plus pitcher got the best score here because it’s certified to reduce more contaminants than Clearly Filtered.  The PUR Plus pitcher is NSF certified to Standards 42, 53, and 401 for 100% of the contaminants that it’s claimed to reduce, including chlorine, tastes, and odors, zinc, particulates class I, cadmium, copper, mercury, and certain pesticides. Our only disappointment is that PUR has recently revoked its lead reduction certification - it has been replaced with a microplastics reduction certification.  https://youtu.be/ECvjNH977PM The Clearly Filtered pitcher is WQA certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 42 and Standard 53, but it’s only certified for the reduction of 3 contaminants out of the hundreds listed on the performance datasheet. 🚦Filtration Rate We compared Clearly Filtered and PUR’s filtration rates by timing how long they took to filter our water.  We’ve shared the filtration rate for both systems, measured in gallons per hour (GPH), in the table below. ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateClearly Filtered10.002.27 GPHPUR Plus10.002.82 GPH This was a close one, but PUR just scraped a win.  The average filtration rate of the 8 water filter pitchers we tested was 2.30 GPM. The PUR Plus filtered 0.25 gallons of water in 5:19 minutes, giving it a filtration rate of 2.82 GPH. The Clearly Filtered pitcher treated 0.5 gallons of water in 13 minutes and 12 seconds, and we measured its filtration rate as 2.27 GPH. Both filters had only been used for a few weeks when we tested them, so we expect their filtration rates will decrease slightly over time, as the filter media becomes clogged with contaminants.   💲 Upfront Cost There’s a big price difference between the Clearly Filtered and PUR Plus pitchers.  We got the PUR Plus 7-cup pitcher for $26.99, which included the initial basic filter. We wanted to test the PUR Plus filter, so we purchased this separately (at an extra cost) to use for this project. The Clearly Filtered pitcher cost $90, making it more than 3 times the price of PUR Plus, and one of the most expensive pitchers we’ve tested.  The CF pitcher holds 10 cups and has more extensive contaminant reduction claims, so we can’t directly compare these prices. In terms of value, we think this depends on your budget and the contaminants you want to reduce, but PUR is the best choice if you want to spend as little as possible.  PUR is only sold by third parties, so you may find it sold at different prices at different stores.  Here’s the price comparison for the two pitchers.  ProductPriceFilters IncludedClearly Filtered Pitcher$90.001PUR Plus 7-Cup Pitcher$26.991 📐 Design We wanted to know the key design differences between PUR and Clearly Filtered. There were two factors that contributed to our scoring in this category:  - How the systems looked and felt in terms of design quality  - Whether or not the systems were certified for materials safety We also assessed their pitcher models and filter materials, although these didn’t affect their overall scores.  You can find our design scores for both filters in the next table.  ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyClearly Filtered9.70OutstandingCertifiedPUR Plus8.80FairCertified The Clearly Filtered pitcher got the highest design score because we were much more impressed with its construction quality.  Filter Models Clearly Filtered sells just one 10-cup water filter pitcher, with no choice of colors - the pitcher is mostly clear, with a white lid and handle. PUR provides slightly more variety, and the PUR Plus water filter can be used in the following systems:  - PUR Plus 7-cup pitcher $26.99 - PUR Plus 11-cup pitcher $37.49 - PUR Plus 12-cup pitcher $42.99 (only at Target) - PUR PLUS 30 Cup Dispenser PUR’s pitchers can be bought with different colored lids and handles, including blue, black, and grey. You might prefer PUR if you like being able to choose from a few different pitcher models and styles, or if you want to upgrade to a system with a larger water-holding capacity. But the Clearly Filtered pitcher is a good size for most folks who want something that’s portable but still holds a good volume of water.  Component Quality  We noted that the Clearly Filtered pitcher had the best design quality of nearly all the pitchers we tested (only the LARQ PureVis came close).  The pitcher is made from scratch-resistant, BPA-free Tritan plastic. It felt thicker, sturdier, and more durable than the PUR Plus pitcher, which is made from NAS or SAN plastics (the filter housings and lids are made of BPA-free polypropylene) and felt thin and flimsy in comparison.  We recommend the Clearly Filtered pitcher if you want a system that should withstand years of use. It feels like it’s better made and should last longer than the PUR Plus - which suggests why there’s a big difference in price.  Both brands only sell plastic pitchers, so neither is the solution if you’re keen to limit your exposure to plastics.  Filter Materials & Media From our research, we can deduce that Clearly Filtered has the more comprehensive filter design.  The CF filter combines activated carbon block media, a composite shell, a woven stainless steel mesh screen, and several proprietary materials. We think these are probably KDF media and some form of ion exchange resin, based on the contaminants that were reduced in our water.  PUR filters use granular activated carbon (ground-up carbon that is held together loosely rather than being pressed into a solid block), and they also contain an ion exchange resin. Both filters house their media inside a plastic cartridge. Materials Safety Certification Both Clearly Filtered and PUR have obtained materials safety certifications as components of their performance certifications, giving them equally high scores in this category. Clearly Filtered obtained its certification from the WQA, while the PUR Plus is certified by the NSF. We felt reassured by these certifications. They tell us that a trusted third-party organization has tested the pitchers and determined that they’re safe and suitable for their purpose. ⚙️ Setup Most of the water filter pitchers we’ve tried have been quick and easy to assemble, but there are usually still some differences, especially when it comes to the filter setup process.  We’ve shared our setup timings and scores for the PUR and Clearly Filtered systems below. ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeClearly Filtered9.50Less than 10 minutesPUR Plus9.50Less than 10 minutes We were pleased with our setup experience for both filters, so they got the same score in this category.  The PUR Plus pitcher was ever so slightly quicker to set up because the filter just needed to be held under running water for 30 seconds before we installed it.  In comparison, the Clearly Filtered pitcher needs to be primed - but it sounds worse than it is! A reusable priming bag comes with the initial pitcher purchase and the process was self-explanatory, taking us just a few minutes overall. Otherwise, we had the same setup tasks for both filters:  - First, we washed the pitchers and reservoirs in warm water with soap, then dried and assembled them.  - Once we’d prepared the filter, we inserted it into the bottom of the reservoir. - Finally, we filled the reservoir with cold water to be filtered.  Setup took less than 10 minutes for both pitchers, and we didn’t have to waste time soaking a filter or filtering/discarding the first few batches of water, which we’ve had to do with other systems. 🔧 Maintenance So both systems were easy to assemble, but we also wanted to know how easy and affordable they were to maintain in the long run.  You can find the maintenance scores for both pitchers in the table below.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsClearly Filtered8.75Outstanding$0.55/ galPUR Plus9.75Outstanding$0.27/ gal PUR’s score was slightly better here. Clearly Filtered’s score was pulled down because it has a higher ongoing maintenance cost.  Servicing Requirements  The primary maintenance task for the Clearly Filtered and PUR pitchers was replacing the filters.  Again, we had to prep the filters as we had to do initially, which was quick and easy for both.  An advantage of PUR’s pitchers is that they feature a filter change indicator light, which changes color to let you know when to replace the filter. This is just an indicator based on a timer, so it’s not completely accurate*, but it’s still a handy reference. The Clearly Filtered pitcher doesn’t have this feature, so we made our own phone calendar reminders. We also washed out the pitchers every few days to prevent a buildup of sediment and mineral deposits. PUR pitcher vessels are dishwasher safe, but Clearly Filtered pitchers need to be hand-washed.  *The best way to know when to replace a water filter is to monitor its flow rate. When the speed of filtration reduces significantly, it’s a sure sign that you need a replacement.  Maintenance Costs We calculated the cost of replacing the filters in the PUR and Clearly Filtered pitchers, using the manufacturers’ projected filter lifespan information. Clearly Filtered was the most expensive of the two. The Clearly Filtered pitcher’s ongoing cost is around $0.55/ gal, PUR Plus’ long-term filter cost is $0.27/gallon. That means that the CF pitcher costs more to maintain in the long run, although its filters should last longer than PUR’s (100 gallons/ around 4 months versus PUR’s 40 gallons/ 2 months), so maintenance should be less frequent.   🏢 Company When it comes to company offerings, Clearly Filtered and PUR are different. Clearly Filtered’s shipping, returns policy, and warranty are better.  Here are the company scores for Clearly Filtered and PUR. ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsClearly Filtered9.002 yearsFree shipping, all orders to all states30 daysPUR Plus7.5090 daysShipping depends on the distributorNone Warranty Length  Clearly Filtered’s products are protected by one of the longest warranties we’ve seen for a water filter pitcher brand: a 2-year warranty. PUR’s warranty is much shorter, but the standard for pitcher brands: 90 days for the pitcher and 30 days for the filter cartridges.  Shipping  Clearly Filtered’s shipping policy is also better - customers in all 50 states get free shipping on all orders, with no minimum spend.  PUR doesn’t have a company shipping policy because its filters are only sold through distributors: Target, Amazon, Walmart, etc. Most of these third-party sellers and marketplaces have an order threshold that must be met to qualify for free shipping.  Returns Again, because PUR products aren’t sold direct on the manufacturer’s website, there’s no dedicated returns policy - it depends on the seller you buy from.  Clearly Filtered has a 30-day money-back guarantee.  ⛔️ Pitcher Setbacks & Flaws We don’t only make notes on the features of a water filter that we enjoyed. Here, we’ve compared any setbacks or flaws that we found with the Clearly Filtered and PUR pitchers.  Clearly Filtered Setbacks - Expensive – The Clearly Filtered pitcher costs more than three times the price of the PUR pitcher, and also has a more expensive ongoing cost.   - Cobalt introduced  – We have concerns about cobalt leaching from the CF filter media.  - Only certified to reduce 3 contaminants – We were disappointed to see that Clearly Filtered has only obtained performance certifications for the reduction of 3 contaminants, especially given that it’s third-party tested to reduce 300+ more contaminants - Filter priming required – The priming requirements for the CF filter meant that setup took more time and effort than with PUR.  PUR Plus Setbacks - No longer certified for lead reduction – It’s great that the PUR Plus filter now has a microplastics reduction certification, but we were disappointed to see that the pitcher’s lead reduction certification has been revoked.  - Didn’t reduce fluoride – In our testing, PUR seemed like the less capable filter of the two. Unlike Clearly Filtered, it didn’t reduce any fluoride in our water. - Poorer-quality pitcher design – We noted that the PUR pitcher we tested was made from flimsier, thinner materials than the CF pitcher. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

Canopy vs Jolie Shower Head Filters: Data-Driven Comparison

Overall Score: 8.25 Canopy Only reduced chorine in our testing Did not reduce disinfection byproducts Did not reduce water hardness 1 year warranty Overall Score: 8.23 Jolie Only reduced chorine in our testing Did not reduce disinfection byproducts Did not reduce water hardness No warranty beyond 60 day return period Canopy and Jolie are two brands best known for their showerhead water filters. Something they both have in common is that their marketing is very much geared towards women.  We were keen to test both filters and see if they were worth their price tags, especially since they’re both around $50-$70+ more expensive than similar filters not marketed towards women (pink tax is, unfortunately, very common). We’ve discussed the results of our analyses in this article.  In our testing, these shower filters actually received the same scores across the board, with only the “company” category as the exception. But while they performed the same on the surface, our experiences testing each of the filters were unique, and they do have some differences when it comes to filtration performance for individual contaminants, design, costs and filtration rate.  Neither product blew us away, and we wouldn’t recommend either of them as the “best” shower filter (they took 6th and 7th place out of the 9 showerhead filters we recently tested). That said, if we purely compare the two, Canopy’s 1-year warranty makes it just the more appealing choice, which translates to a ever-so-slightly higher overall score. 📊 Our Testing Data We scored the Canopy and Jolie shower head filters across 6 different performance categories. This means we can compare them at surface level for their contaminant reduction, filtration rate, design, setup, maintenance, and company policies at a glance. See the scores for both systems in the table below. FactorCanopyJolieContaminant Reduction7.717.71Filtration Rate10.0010.00Design7.207.20Setup9.009.00Maintenance9.509.50Company8.808.35 Want to get a more detailed overview of our results? The next table displays all the scored subcategories that were combined and averaged to achieve the overall scores for each category. FactorCanopyJolieWinnerOverall Score8.258.23CanopyHealth Related Contaminants7.807.80TieAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationnonenoneTieFiltration Rate2.33 GPM2.20 GPHCanopyComponent QualityFairFairTieComponent CertificationnonenoneTieSetupExcellentExcellentTieServicing RequirementsExcellentExcellentTieCosts$0.012/ gal.$0.012/ gal.TieWarranty Length1 year60 daysCanopyShipping$25 order thresholdFree for lower 48 US statesJolieReturns60 days60 daysTie 🚰 Contaminant Reduction We awarded the contaminant reduction scores for Canopy and Jolie by combining data from our own water testing (using city water from Steamboat Springs, CO) with official certifications from the WQA, NSF, or IAMPO. Our Lab Test Results We tested two samples of water to see how the Canopy and Jolie shower filters affected our water quality: - An unfiltered water sample - A water sample taken from our shower after installing each filter We used a lab testing service called Tap Score by Simplelab, which mailed us kits to take our samples before sending them back to the lab. When analyzing our data, we compared our results to the testing lab’s Health Guideline Levels, or HGLs. This helped us to understand the safety of the concentrations of contaminants detected in our water.  A couple of testing notes that are important for this specific comparison:  - First, since the Canopy and Jolie filters are designed to filter shower water (not drinking water), we were most concerned about the contaminants in our water that pose risk of inhalation and dermal exposure, rather than ingestion. The key contaminants we focused on were chlorine, disinfection byproducts (DBPs), and water hardness.  - Second, we decided to test cold water, even though most of us shower in hot water. This was because we wanted to get an accurate measurement of the disinfection byproducts in our water, which are highly volatile and dissipate into the air quickly, particularly from hot water. - Since these can be harmful when inhaled, it was important for us to test how effectively each filter could address them.  Below, we’ve shared the percent reduction of the contaminants in our water by Canopy and Jolie. Canopy and Jolie got identical scores here. They both eliminated chlorine, but neither had an effect on water hardness or DBP concentrations, and neither score was brought up by a performance certification.  Health-Related Contaminants Both filters performed similarly when it came to reducing health-related contaminants in our water.  There were a handful of contaminants with possible health effects detected in our shower water.  We were specifically concerned about chlorine and four disinfection byproducts (see the table below for their detections). Three of the four DBPs exceeded the lab’s Health Guideline Level, meaning they were present in potentially health-harmful concentrations. Bromochloromethane was detected in concentrations below the Reporting Limit, so it was unable to be evaluated. Starting with the Canopy Filtered Showerhead, this filter completely eliminated the chlorine detected in our water, but it didn’t reduce DBPs—in fact, total THMs actually increased by 158%. We believe this is an incidental increase due to fluctuations in the DBPs in our water and simply tells us that the filter was unable to reduce them.  We did notice a few unusual outcomes: there was a 32% increase in copper and the massive 8,797% increase in zinc in our filtered water (still within the HGL for both). We think these contaminants leached from the KDF media, and the good news is that they’re not known to have health effects through dermal exposure or inhalation. Additionally, arsenic increased by 93%, and fluoride increased by 5,675%. Again, we think these were incidental fluctuations in our water supply throughout the day of testing.  Our results also highlighted a 404% increase in lead. In this case, we are concerned that such a substantial increase in lead could point towards leaching from the filter itself, but we can’t confirm this until we conduct further, comprehensive testing. As for the Jolie Filtered Showerhead, this filter also eliminated chlorine, but, like the Canopy filter, it didn’t affect the DBP concentrations in our water. Again, a couple of THMs actually increased post-filtration. Another similarity we noted was that the levels of zinc in our filtered water from the Jolie unit had also increased, this time by over 4,500%. Interestingly, in this case, copper actually decreased by 60%. The concentrations of fluoride in our filtered water also increased by 6,025%, likely incidentally, and we’re not concerned about its effects in shower water. Good to Know: Canopy misleadingly claims that its filter can reduce “harmful microbes, bacteria, or fungi” in water. We couldn’t test its ability to do this because our testing didn't detect these microorganisms, but we want to clarify something here: KDF-55 (used in the Canopy filter) is intended to control the buildup of bacteria in the filter media, but it’s not meant to reduce bacteria or any other microorganisms in the treated water.  Water Hardness Hard water has hair and skin effects in shower water, so we also tested for water hardness pre- and post-filtration. Our unfiltered water sample had a total hardness reading of 128.19 PPM, or 7.49 GPG, putting it in the “hard” category. We also performed a more precise onsite titration test, which detected a hardness of 8 GPG.  Canopy’s manufacturers claim that it can reduce magnesium and calcium carbonate... ....but we didn’t see these results in our testing: magnesium wasn’t reduced at all, while calcium increased by 16%. Carbonate did decrease by 69%, but total hardness increased by 12.45%, so the filter clearly does not address water hardness. The Jolie filter didn’t reduce water hardness either, but at least Jolie didn’t make misleading claims about hard water reduction.  Performance Certifications Neither Canopy nor Jolie have been certified for contaminant reduction, which puts them behind compared to many other shower filters on the market. NSF/ANSI 177 for chlorine reduction is the most common certification that showerhead filters can obtain.  Canopy simply claims that its filters have been tested to NSF 177 Standards, which could be confusing to somebody with limited knowledge of how certifications are obtained.  Jolie’s claims are bolder and downright misleading: the product page mentions that the Jolie model “far exceeds certifications” and has been “tested in multiple labs”, and the FAQs state that the filter “uses best-in-class filter technology and is NSF Certified”. 🚦Filtration Rate We timed how long it took for Canopy and Jolie to filter two cups of water. We repeated the test three times for each filter, then took the average time for each and converted it into a flow rate in gallons per minute (GPM). Here’s how both systems matched up. ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateCanopy10.002.33 GPMJolie10.002.20 GPM Both products were among those with the fastest flow rates of all the shower filters we tested. Canopy was slightly faster, although there wasn’t much in it.  The Canopy Showerhead Filter had a filtration rate of 2.33 GPH, based on its ability to fill 2 cups of filtered water in an average time of 3.22 seconds.  The Jolie Showerhead Filter took an average time of 3.42 seconds to fill 2 cups of water, so its flow rate came in at 2.20 GPM. We tested both filters while they were still quite new, so it’s likely that their flow rates will decrease over time as their media becomes clogged with contaminants. But in our testing, neither filter affected our showerhead water pressure and we were still able to enjoy a power shower. 💲 Upfront Cost In terms of their upfront cost, both Jolie and Canopy are selling shower filters with a high price tag.  At the time of publishing this review, Canopy’s Showerhead Filter is selling for $150, while Jolie’s is even steeper, at $165.  For some perspective, the other similar filters we tested ranged in price from $35 to $119. Since the Canopy and Jolie filters use the same filtration media as many of these other shower filters, and don’t offer any specific features or benefits that make them unique, we don’t think their expensive upfront costs are worth it.  Our take: As customers, we’d hesitate to spend more than $100 on a shower filter unless it had an obvious benefit (such as an extremely long filter life or a unique filtration media that promised the reduction of hardness minerals and DBPs). 📐 Design As for design, here’s where we’re finally seeing a handful of differences between the two systems.  Both are a similar size, and both combine the filter and showerhead in one unit, but they look different. The Canopy filter is a funnel shape, while the Jolie filter has a cylindrical compartment that stores the filter, attached on the back of a round, flat showerhead.   Canopy also has something that the Jolie filter doesn’t: an included aroma kit, with a felt diffuser that you soak with essential oil and hang from your shower.  They’re both available in several different finishes and colors, and both have a similar look and feel—kinda flimsy and plasticy—in terms of component quality. Neither is certified for materials safety, so again, quite disappointing.  In terms of filter materials, they’re similar here, too. The Canopy filter contains granular activated carbon, KDF-55, and calcium sulfite media, while the Jolie filter uses KDF-55 and calcium sulfite, so no activated carbon. KDF, calcium sulfite, and activated carbon are all known for their chlorine reduction abilities, which is a good start. But both of these filters would be improved by using a solid carbon block filter, which would mean they could also target disinfection byproducts. ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyCanopy7.20FairNot certifiedJolie7.20FairNot certified ⚙️ Setup So both filters were quick and easy to install in our testing, taking less than 5 minutes and involving a few basic steps, no tools required. Canopy says you should prime the filter by running water through it for 30 seconds, while Jolie doesn’t mention priming, so we assume the filter just gets primed when you turn your shower on and wait for the water to warm up. ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeCanopy9.00 Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

The Best (and Worst) Shower Filters of [year]

We’ve tested 10 popular shower filters using our objective and data-driven analysis to find out which are legit, and which are a flop. The quality and value-for-money offered by a shower filter are difficult to determine at face value. Our testing looks beyond the manufacturers’ claims, and we don’t simply rely on our own subjective judgment (how our skin and hair feels, for instance) to conduct our evaluations. The scores we awarded are based on real data from our tests of contaminant reduction, install time, water hardness, and more.  The Weddell Duo shower filter got the highest contaminant reduction score of all the shower filters we tested. It also scored well for its filtration rate, design quality, and setup and maintenance requirements, awarding it the highest overall score and making it the shower best filter we tested. Read the full article

[waterfiltergurus]

Waterdrop X Series Reverse Osmosis System Review

We tested the Waterdrop X Series X12 to see how effectively it could purify our municipal water in Westminster, Colorado. This review is a comprehensive summary of our observations from our subjective and objective data, gathered during our hands-on testing of the system’s contaminant reduction, efficiency ratio, design quality, ease of setup and maintenance, and more. Overall Score: 8.42 How We Test & Score 7.83 Contaminant Reduction 9.70 Design 10.00 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 7.00 Setup 8.85 Company Note: There are three system configurations in the X Series. Read the full article