water bottles with built in filters?

[phaserrifle]

I've been looking at a way to carry a simple, compact and fairly quick method of obtaining drinking water that doesn't involve sticking bad tasting tablets/droplets into the water.

the obvious answer is some kind of filter system (ideally with in-built chemicals, but so long as it removes the chemical taste I could allways pre-treat it with chlorine)
during my research I discovered a couple of products which build this idea into the cap of a water bottle, so you just fill your bottle and go...
problem is, I can't find much on sale in the UK, apart from the "lifesaver bottle" which costs about a hundred quid, and the web-tex offering, which personally I'm not convinced of (I don't exactly trust their quality)

does anyone know of any other simmilar products, ideally £50 or under, that are any good?
or is the web-tex up to scratch?

 

[w00dsmoke]

I shared the sceptism re the webtex waterbottle survivapure filter but tbh it's a very reliable bit of kit. I use it regularly most weekends on water that has come off farmed/grazed land and I have no fears at all. It works a treat. It gets good reviews too.

 

[lamper]

You're in luck.

Give Bob at shout at backingpackinglight.co.uk

http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/product433.asp?PageID=40

http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/product353.asp?PageID=40

I also carry an AuqaSafeStraw+
http://www.aquasafestraw.com/product-introduction

 

[Gavmar]

These are good ,I use the larger one in the house and got one of these free with it, but hav'nt used it yet. http://www.berkeywater.com/start.main.htmlclick on sport berkey on left menu

 

[Teepee]

I shared the sceptism re the webtex waterbottle survivapure filter but tbh it's a very reliable bit of kit. I use it regularly most weekends on water that has come off farmed/grazed land and I have no fears at all. It works a treat. It gets good reviews too.

The longer I use my webtex inline, the more I like it.

The drinksafe systems one is a bit lighter, with the same internals.

 

[Shewie]

I like the look of the inline models so I'll be interested to see how this thread pans out.

I've always been a Millbank and boil person so I've never ventured into proper filters.

 

[bashabuddy]

I like the look of the inline models so I'll be interested to see how this thread pans out.

I've always been a Millbank and boil person so I've never ventured into proper filters.

What he said .. i thinks i like the look of the in line stuff ... ummmmmm

 

[Martyn]

You know what, if you look at the drinksafe website....
http://www.drinksafe-systems.co.uk/technology.php

The explanation of the technology is in confused and garbled English, which is very poor and unprofessional for this type of product.

It states that it can remove viruses, but it also says it has a 2.0 micron filter with is about 10 times too big to remove viruses (it needs to be smaller than 0.25 microns). It states it uses no chemicals, but warns against use if pregnant or suffering with thyroid problems, which are typical warnings for iodine.

I'm very confused by this product, or rather the manufacturers garbled explanation of the technology it uses.

The webtex is little better...
http://www.surviva-pure.co.uk/products/water-bottle.html
The English is better, but there is no explanation of the technology at all, except for a cutaway illustrating a 2.0 micron carbon filter, which is again 10 times too big to take out viruses. There are also no citations of evidence to support it's claims - where are the lab tests etc?

The problem with built-in iodine filters (which I suspect is how both the above filters tackle viruses), is that iodine needs a certain contact time in order to be effective. I dont know that just sucking water through the impregnated medium gives enough contact time. There is also the issue of iodine buid-up in your thyroid gland, but I think that only becomes a significant issue with prolonged use.

British Red wrote a very good post on the science of water purification...
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28811

 

[johnboy]

So the webtex unit might not be all that good...

Are we surprised?

 

[Martyn]

So the webtex unit might not be all that good...

Are we surprised?

Well, it's all relative. From what I can tell, it looks like a regular charcoal filter, or possibly a resin filter that has iodine in it. It should be fine for cleaning out bacteria and the bigger stuff like Crypto and Giardia from pretty clean looking water; and the iodine might prove of some protection against viral infections, which are pretty rare anyway. So in that context, it would be useful if you understand and accept the limitations. But would I trust it to remove Creutzfeldt–Jakob from a murky pond full of dead cows? No I wouldn't.

 

[johnboy]

Well, it's all relative. From what I can tell, it looks like a regular charcoal filter, or possibly a resin filter that has iodine in it. It should be fine for cleaning out bacteria and the bigger stuff like Crypto and Giardia from pretty clean looking water; and the iodine might prove of some protection against viral infections, which are pretty rare anyway. So in that context, it would be useful if you understand and accept the limitations. But would I trust it to remove Creutzfeldt–Jakob from a murky pond full of dead cows? No I wouldn't.

I wonder what the exclusive absorbing media are why be cagey when you're selling a water filter??.... Anyhow like you say it's not a bag of S*^$e. But not the best either...

Webtex's marketing department sheeze.....

 

[Paul_B]

The longer I use my webtex inline, the more I like it.

The drinksafe systems one is a bit lighter, with the same internals.

Just to be clear I think Drink-safe would argue about that. From another forum the guy at Drink-safe made a comment that another filter make was passing itself off as basically the same but it did not perform the same way and did not have the failsafe function of the drink-safe system whereby the filter stops working when it no longer filters effectively. I think there was something about a supposed test in some well respected tropical deseases medical institution that one was using to make out it filtered more than it did. I am not sure if it was the web-tex one as he never went as far as mentioning the name. He did make it clear that their filter was unique and the only one at the time to take out virus'. I know there is now a Katadyn one that filters out virus' without chemicals but back then when the first incarnation of the bottle came out Katadyn only killed virus' in the bottle if you added tabs.

I have heard nothing but good things about the Drinksafe ones both the bottle and the inline filter. Personally I have used the first version of the travel tap bottle and you have to keep squeezing it to force the water through. The inline filter is probably better esp if used with a bladder. You can also rig it up as a gravity filter too as they supply a range of Q/R connectors.

I don't work or have any links with them but if I didn't have too much stuff to get already it would be my next purchase.

 

[andy_e]

I have the drink-safe inline, does the job - filters out chlorine/iodine taste of pre-treated water (or my tap water tbh). Have filled from all sorts including (unwittingly) 6 feet way from wallaby corpse floating in loch lommond a month or so ago with no ill effect.

The only issue I had with it was that the pre-filter, plasticky coarse cotton wool like stuff, clogged with algae and leaf debris but I guess that's what it's for and a rinse with clean water sorted that.

Used as a gravity feed it's not the fastest but is fine to drink through on the go.

Having used the inline - I quite fancy the canteen version too.

 

[John Fenna]

I use the Web-tex bottle - and I aint dead yet!

 

[Paul_B]

I doubt any of the filters mentioned will give you a dicky tummy in the UK after using them. Afterall UK generally with common sense in country use you could probably drink neat from the water source in most mountain areas at least. I do think there has been a degree of scaremongering. Take the Trail mag article a few years back when they tested a popular area in the Lakes and located several areas with some nasty bugs in the water source. Bearing in mind the test IIRC by taking a swab of the water and adding it to a growing media in a petrie dish. The growing media helps the buhs grow until they are in big enough clusters of bugs to identify. Since it is likely your body has a threshold on the number of the bugs present before they work on you that method doen't seem to me to show if they concentrations are sufficient to make you ill. i could and most likely wrong about that.

Did you know there was a TV programme where they made a replica bathroom with toilet and got people to use it normally. After a certain time they took the toothbrush and swabs of certain areas of the room and tested for bugs only to come up with loads of bugs on the swabs from the walls, etc. but worryingly the toothbrush itself! It seems they all had fetal matter on them from flushing the loo. It just goes to show that sh*t hits the fan or at least the wall.

 

[Martyn]

I doubt any of the filters mentioned will give you a dicky tummy in the UK after using them. Afterall UK generally with common sense in country use you could probably drink neat from the water source in most mountain areas at least. I do think there has been a degree of scaremongering. Take the Trail mag article a few years back when they tested a popular area in the Lakes and located several areas with some nasty bugs in the water source. Bearing in mind the test IIRC by taking a swab of the water and adding it to a growing media in a petrie dish. The growing media helps the buhs grow until they are in big enough clusters of bugs to identify. Since it is likely your body has a threshold on the number of the bugs present before they work on you that method doen't seem to me to show if they concentrations are sufficient to make you ill. i could and most likely wrong about that.

It does because every cluster or "colony" of bugs that grow on the dish, grew from a single bacteria. So if you count the colonies, you have an idea how many bacteria were in your sample. It's just a rough idea though and the Petri dish technique is just one of many they use. That one really is just for identifying which bug is actually there.

(I used to be a microbiology technician in a public health laboratory)

 

[J4C3]

Id go for this
http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/product353.asp?PageID=40

 

[phaserrifle]

Id go for this
http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/product353.asp?PageID=40

having read the ad copy, it does look pretty good. especially as there seem to be plenty of reports of it working in parts foreign (I'm going to peru for 6 weeks in the summer)

course, ad copy is just that. advertising.....