1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Water Purification

Discussion in 'Bushcraft Chatter' started by Tricia, May 3, 2010.

  1. Paul_B

    Paul_B Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,709
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Lancashire
    BTW don't confuse the webtex filter with the drink-safe one as they are actually totally different. Drink-safe does filter out virus' and has been tested by EPA and MOD to this effect. Webtex one is about the same price but does not take out virus' but does look very similar. IIRC there has been a bit of conflict between the two companies. I am about to buy the drink-safe aquaguard eliminator inline filter ion the recommendation of quite a few on another forum. I liked its flexibility, gravity filter or inline filter methods of use. Since I will be using a bladder it fits in well with my use requirements. At camp I can gravity filter it into a flexi bottle. It can be back-flushed too. It comes with various attachements to make it rather flexible. IMHO better than the lifesaver bottle and only 75g for the filter part is rather light!
     
  2. bert333

    bert333 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Earth- for awhile longer...
    The lifesaver bottle (or jerrycan which I use) is the ONLY system that really removes everything known to man- to date.
    Why faf around with anything else?
    I use Micropure when I use my Katadyn filter which is very good but not as effective as the lifesaver kit but obvioulsy way smaller.
     
  3. dwardo

    dwardo Maker

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,129
    Likes Received:
    170
    Location:
    Nr Chester
    If its a debris free spring/lake etc i just boil. If its full of twigs and debris then its millbank then boil.
    If i cant boil then its a little premac filter although i am not keen on the taste its better than taking the risk.

    I did drink straight from the spring until i found a fox jaw bone in the bottom of a regular drinking spring :yikes:

    Still here though.... cant look at a chicken coop in the same way but still here :p
     
  4. Paul_B

    Paul_B Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,709
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Sounds good but I have played around with one on a show and for most people you don't need to remove everything known to man to date. Which interestingly is such a wild statement that I doubt very much is actually possible. If it were then I doubt we'd be seeing radioactivity in the Irish sea even now. They'd be using the technology behind the lifesaver to take it out before the sea. Just one example. I also know that there are a lot of chemicals it is just too hard to remove with a full chem lab so how the hell a bottle can do that I don't know and suspect the lifesaver people won't agree with your statement.

    IMHO the lifesaver is not really better than the likes of the drink-safe system. They both take out a lot of chemicals, all the cysts, protozoas, bacterias and virus's that you are likely to encounter. If one does a little bit more I doubt it but afterall if they both do the same job of preventing you getting ill, removing chemicals which could make you ill in the long term and removing taints or unpleasant tastes then it just comes down to which system suits you. For me the lighter and more practical inline filter from Drink-safe works with it being lighter and more practical than a bottle or jerry can system and it also locks off at the end of its life so you will not have to worry if it is at the end of its life and no longer working properly. You know when that happens because it stops allowing water through. Plain as.
     
  5. Martyn

    Martyn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    staffordshire
    He was talking about biological organisms, not chemicals. In terms of microbiology, it does indeed remove everything known to man.

    The drink safe DOES NOT REMOVE VIRUSES. It tries to kill them with chemical warfare. BIG DIFFERENCE.
     
  6. wentworth

    wentworth Settler

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm pretty sure it's not the only one to remove everything.
     
  7. Paul_B

    Paul_B Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,709
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Erm! I think you are wrong about the drink-safe system. It does remove viruses. That is according to various testing houses it uses. It is "approved" (if there really is any such approval out their) to remove viruses in Australia, America, UK, South Africa, etc. I have one in my grubby hands and reading from the label. Tested by MOD, national test labs, environment agency, London school of hygeine and tropical medicine, etc., etc., etc.

    IIRC correctly another company with a similar looking filter tried to ride on their testing by saying it was the same. That could have been Web-tex but I'm not 100% sure on that. I do know Web-tex is NOT the same as this filter as this one DOES remove viruses. That's if the various reports of the test houses are to be believed. Afterall if the LSH&TM is used by both companies to test their product then surely the results for both products can be equally relied upon.

    Anyway the one thing you can say is the Lifesaver and the Drink-Safe products both remove viruses and disease causes. Unless you choose to ignore tests and approvals by respected bodies and test houses.

    Another thing the Drink-Safe system is a filter only not a chemical and filter system. I'm guessing it uses a similar fine pore size that the Lifesaver system uses. Its not hard to understand, if you make the holes the water has to travel through small enough it will take out the large disease causatives. The hard thing is making those filters and these two companies have managed it to a reliable level to work. That means it is down to personal preference as to which system suits you. In my case the £39.99 delivered price of the Drink-safe inline filter won over the £100+ Lifesaver. That and the 100g or so weight of it.
     
  8. wentworth

    wentworth Settler

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    What is the micron rating on the drinksafe? Unless it's 0.03microns or smaller, it couldn't actually remove viruses. To my knowledge Sawyer has the only filter (0.03microns) capable of actually removing viruses. All other filters use chemicals like iodine in a resin to kill/ deactivate the viruses.
    I can't imagine a water bottle filter having a micron rating that low, as it would make drinking out of it nearly impossible.
     
  9. Martyn

    Martyn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    staffordshire
    The drinksafe uses a 0.2 micron carbon filter impregnated with iodine. The filter is physically incapable of removing viruses, the pores are literally 10 times too big. It hopes to kill them with iodine as the water passess through the filter.

    The Lifesaver bottle mentioned has a 0.015 micron filter and does remove all known biological organisms by filtration alone.

    No connection to any of the manufacturers. :)
     
    #69 Martyn, May 28, 2010
    Last edited: May 28, 2010
  10. Martyn

    Martyn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    staffordshire
    No it doesnt. Honestly. :)

    But please prove me wrong, point me to somewhere that says it filters below 0.025 microns?

    Again, no it doesnt. They claim ONE test showed that there were no live polio viruses in the filtered water. That means one of two things, either the iodine in the filter killed them, or there were no viruses in the water to start with. It does not show that viruses were filtered out. :)
     
    #70 Martyn, May 28, 2010
    Last edited: May 28, 2010
  11. Martyn

    Martyn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    staffordshire
    Bit of a self promotional thing from the inventor, but it should prove interesting viewing for you....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzdBCxZhKpQ

    Just for reference...

    0.2 microns = 200 nanometres
    0.03 microns = 30 nanometres
    0.015 microns = 15 nanometres
     
    #71 Martyn, May 28, 2010
    Last edited: May 28, 2010
  12. Thoth

    Thoth Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Hertford, Hertfordshire
    There is a good 'sticky' http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28811 on the forum about this. Check it out . . .

    Many filters can't remove a virus which is why the purifiers add a chemical after filtering. But read the instructions from the manufacturer. And follow them if you want to stay well.
     
  13. Ray Britton

    Ray Britton Nomad

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol
    Hi everyone.
    This is my first post on this site, so I am only just starting to find my way around.

    I have been interested in the drinking water side of outdoor life/bush craft for some time, and indeed taught it for a living for a while. I would like to know what terms you folks usually use for water filters or sterilisers? Do you just generally call them filters or purifiers, no matter what they actually do, or do you tend to stick to the proper names?
    I did notice that there were a few posts relating to the drinksafe system, and what it's capabilities were while scanning the thread, and have to say that is what I am using mostly at the moment (I used to use the PWP travel well), and after talking with the drinksafe's inventor for an hour or so, am satisfied it is no worse than any other similar system.
     
  14. Harley

    Harley Forager

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    Hi Ray, may I say that is a very good question regarding use of terminology, as even the high-end outdoor magazines frequently misuse the title 'filter' for a purifier and vice-versa.

    The highly regarded Katadyn products also now include a virus and particle filter in a water-bottle style (the Katadyn mybottle), similar to the Drinksafe and Lifesaver bottles from what I can see?
     
  15. Martyn

    Martyn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    staffordshire
    Are you saying that the drinksafe actually "filters" out viruses?

    From my understanding, the drinksafe is a purifier, becuse it cannot filter out viruses andf instead tries to purify the water with iodine (incidentaly, the EU has now prohibited iodine as being marketed for water purification because of questionable efficacy - they cant say for sure if it works).

    The lifesaver bottle is a filter not a purifier, it does not use chemicals at all, but relies entirely on filtration to remove everything, including viruses.

    I have no connection with any of these companies, I just think it's important we understand the technology we are using, and it's limitations.
     
  16. wentworth

    wentworth Settler

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    That's odd regarding the iodine ban. I thought the use of iodine had passed EPA (right organisation?) tests for killing viruses, bacteria and giardia in water above 20 degrees C. Maybe because of it's ineffectiveness against crypto?
     
  17. Martyn

    Martyn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,252
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    staffordshire
    I dunno much about it really, other than it is to be banned. I think it has something to do with it's reduced efficacy when used in turbid waters, but I cant be sure. It is being banned in Europe though and that may mean that the Drinksafe system and Aquapure Traveller etc, will need to be taken off the shelves, or remove the iodine component from the products, which will mean they will have to refine their claims to "removes bacteria only".

    First hit on google for "EU iodine ban" is this...
    http://www.trailspace.com/blog/2009/06/24/european-union-to-ban.html
     
    #77 Martyn, Jun 6, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2010
  18. MrEd

    MrEd Native

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    274
    Location:
    Surrey/Sussex
    millbank abg and boil. cheap, easy, effective and almost maintenance free.
     
  19. Harley

    Harley Forager

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
  20. Harley

    Harley Forager

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    It is not the efficacy of iodine under question, rather that iodine as a biocide (ie for use to kill pathogens as in water treatment) is no longer supported by EU legislation.

    Link to EU Biocides Directive (1998) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biocides/index.htm and the UK HSE information: http://www.hse.gov.uk/biocides/bpd/
     

Share This Page