military tests water purifiers

[alco141]

some results from the us military test on commercial water purifiers:

http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/WPD/CompareDevices.aspx

alex

 

[oldsoldier]

Interesting, good find. I remember in the early 90's, they were testing out different filters for the marine expeditionary forces for use in under developed countries. They were at an impass with two civvie versions; the Pur Hiker & the MSR waterworks. They ended up using the waterworks, as the filter, with proper maintenance, lasted longer. I think that the study they are doing now shows where their mindest is going; again, underdeveloped countries, with units become self-sufficient, supplying their own drinking water. Providing a filter or 2 to every squad's gotta be cheaper than flying in bottled water. Or, building a treatment/desalination plant.

 

[Martyn]

I wonder why no UV purifiers in the tests?

 

[kram245]

Intersting that iodine has no protection against giardia and crypto, unless exposed for very long periods ( around an hour) and i think that will be dependant on water temperature . Certainly longer than i thought necessary. Good find.

 

[oldsoldier]

Iodine tabs issued to the US army recommend 1 tablet for 1/2 hr for a quart (canteen), unless the water is really cold/murky/suspect. Then, IIRC, you double the dose & the time. The important thing was to screw the cap on loosely, shake well, coating the threads & inner cap as well. Some of us cheated, and got collapsible canteens, and just squeezed to get the water to dribble out.

 

[anthonyyy]

I wonder why no UV purifiers in the tests?

I worked out once for a particular UV purifier that the weight of batteries required to produce a particular volume of sterilised water was greater than the amount of iodine or chlorine tablets.

Actually they seem to have tested a "uv pen" (about 6 from the bottom) but all the boxes are marked with an "X", whatever that means.

 

[Stuart]

I'm not sure I agree with their findings, I have been involved in testing a number of water purification devices over the years and some of the solutions that I class as the best are rated poorly there, where as conversely one of the solutions which i ranked as least effective scores quite highly there.

I don’t agree with their views on iodine either, they seem to be working on the basis that if they have no specific data from the EPA on effectiveness against cryptosporidium, Giardia, etc (ie the EPA have never tested it) then they automatically mark it as ineffective, which essentially discredits all methods utilising iodine

I wouldn’t recommend that anyone use this data to make a decision on what water purification system to use

 

[Martyn]

Actually they seem to have tested a "uv pen" (about 6 from the bottom) but all the boxes are marked with an "X", whatever that means.

So they did, my mistake.

The Hydro-Photon Steri-Pen.

They say the X...

Means we do not expect the device to consistently provide adequate protection from microbial pathogen groups. This is based on available data, lack of data, and/or general scientific knowledge of the treatment technology. A device containing an X requires additional treatment to minimize the risk of illness from waterborne pathogens.

...interesting. The steri-pen gets 'X's for everything.

So, piece of junk or just not tested? If they havent properly tested the thing, they probably shouldn't list it at all, rather than list it and discredit it with an X!

 

[Martyn]

I don’t agree with their views on iodine either, they seem to be working on the basis that if they have no specific data from the EPA on effectiveness against cryptosporidium, Giardia, etc (ie the EPA have never tested it) then they automatically mark it as ineffective, which essentially discredits all methods utilising iodine

Testing really isnt difficult. Deliberately infect a sample of sterile water with a known dilution of the organism of your choice, filter/sterilise it with your device/chemical, then culture & microscopy for presence of organims. Test 100 samples to get statistical significance.

No brainer really. Cheap too. Pretty much any small public health laboratory could do it easily.

 

[rik_uk3]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....MEWA:IT&viewitem=&item=190083596619&rd=1&rd=1

If you google the Steripen it has some good reviews, match one with a millbank bag and it looks a good setup

 

[Pete E]

I'm not sure I agree with their findings, I have been involved in testing a number of water purification devices over the years and some of the solutions that I class as the best are rated poorly there, where as conversely one of the solutions which i ranked as least effective scores quite highly there.

I don’t agree with their views on iodine either, they seem to be working on the basis that if they have no specific data from the EPA on effectiveness against cryptosporidium, Giardia, etc (ie the EPA have never tested it) then they automatically mark it as ineffective, which essentially discredits all methods utilising iodine

I wouldn’t recommend that anyone use this data to make a decision on what water purification system to use

Stuart,

Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail how you carried out the tests and for whom????

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

With regards the US Army Tests, you need to read the blurb fully to understand what they are saying...The rating reflect the stringency of adherence to the specified testing program as much as to the effectiveness of the unit. They also prefer the tests to be carried out by an independent body rather than the manufacturer themselves.

For instance to get three ticks, the unit must have been independently tested to meet the required standards, where as a device that had only been tested "in house" is immediately deducted one tick as they can't guarantee total impartiality.

Essentially, they guarantee any device that has at least one tick in each box will offer full protection if the device is used in the correct manner.

Where a device has an X against it, click on "more information" tabs in the far right columns and they explain why its failed and what is needed to remedy it ie additional treatment.

 

[Martyn]

Where a device has an X against it, click on "more information" tabs in the far right columns and they explain why its failed and what is needed to remedy it ie additional treatment.

Ahhh, thanks for pointing that out Pete. Clicking the more info link re the Steri-Pen, provided the following .pdf file...

http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/WPD/WPDSHARE/139/AddInfo_HydroPhotonSteriPEN.pdf

There is a concise report on why the steri-pen was awarded X's and they did test. It appears they do not believe it to be effective. Read the pdf for the explanation.

 

[Greg]

Man this is deep!!:Thinkingo

 

[Mikey P]

Stuart,

Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail how you carried out the tests and for whom????

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

With regards the US Army Tests, you need to read the blurb fully to understand what they are saying...The rating reflect the stringency of adherence to the specified testing program as much as to the effectiveness of the unit. They also prefer the tests to be carried out by an independent body rather than the manufacturer themselves.

First off - and you're not going to believe this - the military firewall on the system I'm using has blocked me from going to the link because (wait for it) it is a 'government/military site'. <Sigh>

Anyway, my point: I know I've banged on about this one before, but the the MSR Miox system is in use with the US military but I've seen little cross-over use for 'bushcrafters'.

(See http://www.msrcorp.com/filters/miox.asp, http://www.miox.com/images/datasheets/MSR_MIOX_Purifier_Military.pdf, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-107795455.html and http://stuff.silverorange.com/archives/2004/september/msrmioxpurifier - and I have no affiliation with MSR. Wish I did though, it would make climbing equipment a lot cheaper)

Whilst this could be the cost (around 85 quid in the UK, cheaper in the US - as usual) or availability (I've only seen it in US military equipment stores), I've been very impressed with the system so far. Yes, it has it's downsides (time taken, batteries required, salt required, does not filter), but for size and reliability (you are actually able to test the 'pureness' of the water, although I don't know exactly what this test proves), I think it's extremely convenient.

I've found that by managing my water (one bottle to drink whilst other bottle is being treated), I have a good system. I am fully prepared to debate the relative merits of the system but no-one else seems to have used it!

Was this system tested in the series of tests mentioned at the start of this thread?

 

[Stuart]

Testing really isn&#8217;t difficult. Deliberately infect a sample of sterile water with a known dilution of the organism of your choice, filter/sterilise it with your device/chemical, then culture & microscopy for presence of organisms. Test 100 samples to get statistical significance.

No brainer really. Cheap too. Pretty much any small public health laboratory could do it easily.

Exactly, so why haven&#8217;t they simply tested it, rather than discrediting a universally accepted method because that haven&#8217;t undertaken a simple test

Stuart,

Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail how you carried out the tests and for whom????

In some cases I undertook the evaluations for the manufacturer (or the UK distributor) of the device, in other cases I was tasked with testing devices by companies considering marketing them.

I was not directly involved in any laboratory testing (I am not qualified to do so), my aim was to determine real world reliability and function by testing them under difficult conditions and harsh environments (jungle, desert etc)

I cannot disclose exactly for whom I undertook the testing, what the results were and which manufactures were involved as this might breach my non-disclosure agreements, I can however tell you which devices I choose to use personally

 

[JonnyP]

some results from the us military test on commercial water purifiers:

http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/WPD/CompareDevices.aspx

alex

Thanks for that, very interesting...It seems that my swee****er filter is now part of the MSR group. I am pleased to see it came out tops on all the tests...
Edit....Ahh, I need to write "sweet water" as two words because of the swear filter....

 

[Pete E]

equipment a lot cheaper)


Was this system tested in the series of tests mentioned at the start of this thread?

Mikey,

In these particular tests, it gets the top three ticks for dealing with Bacteria, Virus Giardia, but an X for Cryptosporidium parvum.

The site then goes on to give the advantages/disadvantages of this product as:
"Advantages

* Independent testing using the USEPA Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers confirms the device consistently provides 6-log bacteria, 4-log virus, and 3-log Giardia cyst reduction when used as directed.
* Small and lightweight.
* Inexpensive to use.
* No adverse health effects expected in healthy adults from short-term use.

Disadvantages

* Does not consistently provide adequate Cryptosporidium reduction when used as directed. Using the overkill option dose (8X normal dose) and waiting 4 hours will ensure adequate Cryptosporidium reduction.
* Does not reduce or remove particulate matter.
* Can impart chlorine taste and odor. "

I suspect the reason they fail it for use against Cryptosporidium is that the four hour over kill dose is needed as opposed to normal operation and that there is a grey area that people have to decided to undertake this additional step ie they have no way of knowing if the water they are treating has Cryptosporidium present or not....

 

[Pete E]

In some cases I undertook the evaluations for the manufacturer (or the UK distributor) of the device, in other cases I was tasked with testing devices by companies considering marketing them.

I was not directly involved in any laboratory testing (I am not qualified to do so), my aim was to determine real world reliability and function by testing them under difficult conditions and harsh environments (jungle, desert etc)

I cannot disclose exactly for whom I undertook the testing, what the results were and which manufactures were involved as this might breach certain non-disclosure agreements, I can however tell you which devices I choose to use personally

Stuart,

Thanks for that....

Exactly, so why haven’t they simply tested it, rather than discrediting a universally accepted method because that haven’t undertaken a simple test

They haven't discredited anything, but rather credited those devises which meet their standards of testing and performance...They clearly state in part of the write up that they have been on the conservative side in their testing and evaluation procedure...If a product has 3 ticks against it, the protection it offers can be considered "gold standard", but what I can't see any where is any rating that take into account the practicality of the product, or its user friendliness, or its robustness. Therefore I would so the infomation while extremely useful, its needs to be used with care....

Regards,

Pete

 

[Mikey P]

Mikey,

In these particular tests, it gets the top three ticks for dealing with Bacteria, Virus Giardia, but an X for Cryptosporidium parvum.

The site then goes on to give the advantages/disadvantages of this product as:
"Advantages

* Independent testing using the USEPA Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers confirms the device consistently provides 6-log bacteria, 4-log virus, and 3-log Giardia cyst reduction when used as directed.
* Small and lightweight.
* Inexpensive to use.
* No adverse health effects expected in healthy adults from short-term use.

Disadvantages

* Does not consistently provide adequate Cryptosporidium reduction when used as directed. Using the overkill option dose (8X normal dose) and waiting 4 hours will ensure adequate Cryptosporidium reduction.
* Does not reduce or remove particulate matter.
* Can impart chlorine taste and odor. "

I suspect the reason they fail it for use against Cryptosporidium is that the four hour over kill dose is needed as opposed to normal operation and that there is a grey area that people have to decided to undertake this additional step ie they have no way of knowing if the water they are treating has Cryptosporidium present or not....

Thanks mate! Although I've had no ill effects yet, I'm going to make a pencil note on the instructions and a mental note in my head to to use overkill if unsure. Thanks for that - could be a life saver!

As a keen swimmer, though, I love the taste of chlorine!

 

[Mikey P]

Therefore I would so the infomation while extremely useful, its needs to be used with care....

Regards,

Pete

Good point. As with any of these systems (and pretty much anything in bushcraft), we have to make our own evaluation based on personal experience, comments by others, and manufacturer's blurb. And then write them up on this site!