Kind E-3000 Review: A Data-Driven Analysis

The Kind E-3000 is a whole-house water filter and conditioner that combines three cartridges to remove contaminants and prevent scale formation. We tested the system on municipal water in the mountains of Colorado, to find out how it affected our water quality and flow rate, and how it compared to other systems in terms of design quality, value for money, and more.  Overall Score: 8.51 How We Test & Score 8.23 Contaminant Reduction 8.40 Design 9.50 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 7.50 Setup 8.80 Company What We Like Effectively reduced contaminants in our testing Also greatly reduced scale formation Uses certified components & has a lifetime warranty More affordable than similar systems Low-maintenance What We Don’t Like Not performance certified Some contaminant concentrations increased post-filtration Only one size available (although this should be fine for most folks) Fairly complex POE install Price$1,998.00Contaminants Reduced160+CertificationsNoneProcessMechanical + Catalytic CarbonFilter Capacity80,000 gallonsAnnual Cost~$120 – $300WarrantyLimited Lifetime 📊 Scoring Data We personally tested the Kind E-3000 ourselves, measuring its performance across 6 different performance categories. We combined and averaged this data into an overall score for the system. You can see the key scoring data we used when reviewing the E-3000 in the next table. CriteriaResultsOverall Score8.51Health Related Contaminants8.40Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot certifiedFiltration Rate15 GPMComponent QualityExceptionalComponent CertificationNot certifiedSetupBelow AverageServicing RequirementsExcellentCosts$0.0018/ galWarranty LengthLimited LifetimeShippingFree on orders over $99Returns120 days 🎬 Video Review https://youtu.be/SYsQiwpG7IY?si=uI0Os8K5uFkGTXV0 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 8.23 As a whole-house water filter and conditioner, the primary purpose of the Kind E-3000 is to remove contaminants and reduce hardness deposits. So our first port of call was to test our water quality before and after filtering it through the system, so we could analyze how it performed with our own water.  We also wanted to know whether or not the Kind E-3000 had an official performance certification for its contaminant reduction abilities - this was the other key data that affected its score in this category. Our Performance Testing Score: 8.48 Before installing the Kind E-3000, we tested our water to find out exactly what contaminants were present.   We used a service called Tap Score for all our testing in this project.  Our initial results were unexpected, which led us to repeat the test again. We’ve discussed this in more detail later, but you can also see our two sets of results in the table below.  Health-Related Contaminants Score: 8.40 Our top priority was to remove the 12 contaminants with health effects that were detected in our water, including fluoride, disinfection byproducts, and lead.  Long-term exposure to these contaminants has been linked to health effects including liver and kidney issues, developmental problems, blood effects, and gastrointestinal issues.  We analyzed our test data using the lab’s Health Guideline Level benchmark, which prioritizes human health and is much more strict than the federal MCL standard. Chloroform, total THMs, and lead were all detected above the Tap Score HGL, so we were particularly keen to reduce these contaminants with the E-3000.  As we mentioned, we tested our water twice, for reasons we’ll explain shortly. Below, we’ve discussed our results for each test individually.  Our Test 1 Results In test 1, our post-filtration results showed that the Kind E-3000 reduced chloroform by 93.5%, but it only reduced lead by 58%. This outcome was surprising to us because the filter uses solid catalytic carbon block media, which should be able to remove 100% chloroform and do a much better job at reducing lead.  However, there was always a chance that lead was leaching from our plumbing downstream of the filter, making it appear to reduce less lead than it actually did.  But we decided to re-test our water after replacing the filters, and that’s when we realized that we’d made a mistake during installation. Before we talk about what we found, let’s discuss which other contaminants were addressed by the filter in test 1. Fluoride levels decreased by 40%, barium dropped by 73%, strontium was eliminated entirely, and nickel and zinc were reduced by 6% and 9%. Sulfate increased by 4%, and chloride by 9%, suggesting potential fluctuations in the water coming from the distribution system.  But we got some strange outcomes, too: 0.134 PPM of aluminum appeared in our filtered water, and copper levels increased by more than 100%.  Needless to say, we wanted to repeat the test to see if we obtained these unusual results the second time around.  Our Test 2 Results When we went to replace the filters, we found that we’d installed them back-to-front. So, the sediment filter, which is intended to trap large particles first, was actually last in the sequence. We wondered whether this could have caused sediment in our water supply to damage the carbon filter cartridge, affecting its performance.  So we installed a new set of filters, the right way around this time, and tested our water again.  This time, chloroform and lead were both reduced by 100%, to below detectable levels.  We can’t be certain whether the incorrect filter configuration was to blame, one of our initial filters was faulty, or perhaps the contaminants in our source water had fluctuated.  Regardless, our tip is to triple-check your filter configuration if you’re using a multi-stage system with similar-sized cartridges. The mistake was easy for us to make, even when we thought we’d followed the instructions carefully. We test water filters all the time, but we’re still only human, and we do make mistakes occasionally.  As for the other contaminants, fluoride levels only decreased by 20% this time. Nickel and zinc weren’t detected in our second test, but barium, which was reduced by 73% in test 1, was only reduced by 20% the second time.  Sulfate increased slightly more, by 7%, but this time, chloride was reduced by 7% instead of increasing by this amount. 0.1 PPM of nitrates appeared, but aluminum wasn’t detected at all. Manganese, which wasn’t reduced in test 1, became undetectable in the second. Strontium actually increased by 18%, And copper, which had spiked dramatically in the first test, was significantly decreased by 97% in the second.  So our test 2 results were still a bit random, but better on the whole.  Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 We used the Hach chlorine test strip, included in our Tap Score test, to get a reading of the chlorine levels in our unfiltered water.  Around 1 PPM of chlorine was detected, which makes sense given that we’re on a municipal water supply, which gets disinfected at the treatment plant.  We tested our filtered water using another test strip, and this time, no chlorine was detected. The E-3000’s catalytic carbon block media had obviously done its job in eliminating chlorine and its associated tastes and odors.  Minerals & Scale Reduction What makes the Kind E-3000 unique is that it combines two filtration cartridges with a water conditioning cartridge, so it’s also capable of reducing hard water scale formation.  The third-stage eSoft Salt-Free Softening Cartridge uses a process known as template-assisted crystallization (TAC), which crystallizes hardness minerals and stops them from adhering to surfaces as scale deposits.  The advantage of conditioning units like the E-3000 is that they help tackle the effects of hard water without the expense, maintenance, and salt usage of a conventional ion exchange water softener.  But the E-3000 doesn’t actually soften water, so we wanted to test how effectively it reduced scale compared to a water softener.  Before installing the system, we used a commercial descaler to clean the surfaces that come into contact with water, including our showerhead, faucets, and sinks. We then installed the E-3000 and monitored these surfaces every day.  What was clear from the get-go is that the E-3000 is no water softener. We’ve tested conventional softeners that prevent scale formation entirely, which makes sense, given that they actually remove hardness minerals. With the E-3000, limescale still formed on our surfaces. That said, it was much easier to clean away with a quick wipe, and didn’t have the tough, abrasive feel of limescale with no water conditioning. Interestingly, although the E-3000 isn’t intended for hardness reduction, our initial test results showed that hardness did decrease by 10%, followed by a 20% increase in the second test. Calcium and magnesium levels decreased by 14% and 40% in test 1, but these increased by 44% and 55% in the second.  These mineral fluctuations are another random outcome of our testing that we can’t offer a certain explanation for - but we think it’s most likely due to the design of the eSoft cartridge. This media collects hardness minerals, where they remain until they form micro-crystals and grow to a bigger size, at which point they’re released back into the water.  Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 Performance certifications are a useful metric for us because they allow us to evaluate a water filter’s performance beyond our own limited testing.  We could only test the Kind E-3000’s ability to remove the contaminants in our own water, so we’d value an official NSF, WQA, or IAPMO certification for the reduction of additional contaminants.  However, the E-3000 currently isn’t certified, so it got the poorer score in this category.  Kind doesn’t even provide a third-party testing performance data sheet for the E-3000. Instead, it shares a list of “chemicals addressed by carbon”, and another of “organics addressed by carbon”, which doesn’t tell us whether or not the E-3000’s carbon filter has been tested specifically to reduce these contaminants.  We still wanted to compare the contaminants reduced in our own water with those that Kind mentions in these lists.  We found that the filtration system did do a good job of reducing chloroform and lead, which were both included on the manufacturer’s “contaminants addressed” lists.  The fact that the E-3000 also reduced fluoride, barium, nickel, zinc, manganese (in test 2), and copper (in test 2) was a bonus because these aren’t contaminants that Kind claims to address. 🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 The Kind E-3000 is a point-of-entry (POE) water filtration system, and we measured its flow rate in gallons per minute (GPM).  A fast flow rate is particularly important in a POE system because any interruptions in flow or water pressure could affect the operation of the fixtures and appliances around your home.  The Kind E-3000 did great in this category because it has a high maximum flow rate of 15 GPM - higher than many of the other whole-house systems we tested. It’s suitable for homes with up to 6 bathrooms, and we appreciated that we didn’t have to pay to upgrade to a configuration with a higher flow rate - the E-3000 is sold in one size only.  After we’d installed the system, we noticed no difference in the flow of water from our faucets and showers, and our water pressure was unchanged.  📐 Design Score: 8.40 Design is another vitally important element of a whole-house water filtration system.  If the system breaks due to a design flaw or poor-quality components, there’s a risk of a major leak, so a high-quality design is a non-negotiable for us in our testing.  The Kind E-3000 is a cartridge-based system, and it has three separate filter cartridges: a sediment filter, a carbon filter, and the E-Soft cartridge - connected to a metal mount.  It’s smaller and shorter than a tank-based unit, with a height of 29 inches, a width of 23.25 inches, and a depth of 8 inches. This makes it a good choice for installing in homes with limited available space.  Component Quality Score: 10.00 We were very pleased with the Kind E-3000’s component quality overall.  The filter housings are made from plastic, but the mounting hardware is made from stainless steel, and has a durable, sturdy feel. We reached out to Kind’s customer service team to see exactly what materials are used in the E-3000’s design, and here’s what they said:  “The system is made from a heavy-duty polymer composite and is backed by a limited lifetime warranty.” We did some research and found that polymer composites are polymer materials with a reinforcement, and they’re known for their durability - they’re typically used in automotive and aerospace applications.  Polymers are versatile materials that are easily molded. Not all polymers are plastics (plastics are simply a kind of semi-synthetic polymer) but the look and feel of the Kind E 3-000 filter cartridges makes us pretty certain that they are.  We were initially a little apprehensive about how the E-3000 would match up quality-wise to tank-based systems, which are usually made from tougher materials, like polypropylene. But we saw no signs of wear, such as cracks or breaks, throughout our test period, and all the most important parts (like the connections) feel solid and quality.  Of course, because this system does use plastics in its design, it may not be the best solution for folks who are concerned about microplastics leaching and want to limit their water’s contact with plastic as much as possible.  Certification Score: 6.00 Design certifications offer a great way for manufacturers to reassure customers about their filter quality and durability.  We love to see materials safety certifications because we know that our own experience with a product doesn’t always tell the whole story. When a filter is certified, we know that the filter design quality has been approved by a trusted testing organization.  Unfortunately, the Kind E-3000 doesn’t have any certifications for its design, so it got the poorer score here.  Filter Materials & Media As we mentioned, the E-3000 combines three separate filter stages, and different media are used in each stage.  The main stage is the solid catalytic carbon block filter, which uses a process known as adsorption to pull contaminants out of the water. Catalytic carbon is a special, modified version of activated carbon that has additional contaminant-reduction abilities - it’s much more effective at adsorbing chloramine, for example. Carbon media is typically made from natural materials, like coconut shell and charcoal.   The sediment filter is a 5-micron pleated filter and can be washed and reused several times before it needs to be replaced.  The eSoft cartridge uses tiny polymer beads called “carbonate crystal structures”.  All filters are housed in plastic housing.  ⚙️ Setup Score: 7.50 Our setup score for the Kind E-3000 was based on the complexity of the install process, and how long the system took us to install.  It didn’t get the top score here simply because it’s a POE system, and filters in this category require the most complicated install. A lot more plumbing knowledge and skill is required in installing a whole-home system compared to a point-of-use system, and there’s a greater risk of things going wrong.  But the E-3000 was, at least, one of the easiest whole-house filters to install.  We some handy skills and DIY knowledge for the install, but it took us only about 45 minutes, which included shutting off the water and draining our plumbing system, cutting into our existing main water pipe, and installing the unit, which we mounted to our wall.  The unit only requires 2 connections, which meant it was very difficult to get the process wrong (although we still managed to get the filter cartridges the wrong way around, as we mentioned earlier!). It can be installed at any type of pipe, including PVC, CPVC, copper, and PEX pipes.  We decided to install the unit ourselves, which definitely says something about the ease of the process. Many other whole-house systems are too complex for us to DIY-install, and we had to spend extra on a plumber - but not with the E-3000.  The filters didn’t need to be primed, which also saved us a lot of time and hassle. We just had to flush them by opening a cold water faucet and leaving it to run for 10 minutes, sending water through the system.  🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.50 We also had a good experience with the Kind E-3000 when it came to maintenance ease, frequency, and costs.  Servicing Requirements 9.00 There were a few features of the system that made maintenance particularly easy and affordable: - We could flush and reuse the sediment filter multiple times before replacing it (every 12 months or so).  - The eSoft cartridge never needs to be replaced, as it lasts the system’s entire lifespan.  That meant our primary maintenance task was replacing the catalytic carbon cartridge and sediment filter, which last up to 1 year on average.   So, the system is more maintenance-heavy than a POE tank-based system, which is easier to maintain because it backwashes the filter media, extending its lifespan for years.  But we still found the process of replacing the filters very easy, using the included spanner wrench to unscrew the filter housing and replace the filter cartridge inside.  There’s no filter countdown timer, so we had to make our own calendar reminders for when to replace the filters. Or, we could sign up to the manufacturer’s AutoShip program, so our filters got delivered once a year on schedule. Costs Score: 10.00 The Kind E-3000 has one of the lowest ongoing costs of all the whole-house water filtration systems we’ve tested - which is especially impressive given that it combines contaminant reduction with water filtration.  We calculated that it has a maintenance cost of $0.0018 per gallon, based on the carbon and sediment filters’ 80,000-gallon capacity.   Of course, this is assuming that the filters actually last this long - depending on your water quality and daily water usage, you might need to replace them more frequently.  🏢 Company Score: 8.80 Finally, we wanted to know how Kind’s company offerings compared to similar companies selling POE water treatment systems.  We evaluated the manufacturer’s warranty, shipping, and returns policies, and we were generally pleased with Kind as a company overall. Warranty  Score: 10.00 Kind’s products are sold with a limited lifetime warranty, which is pretty much as good as it gets for a whole-house water filter company.  There are a few terms - the system must be maintained in normal working condition, and the warranty doesn’t cover damage due to improper use, installation mistakes, freezing, and natural disasters.  One thing we appreciate about Kind’s product warranty is that it doesn’t get voided if you DIY-install your filter. Many other manufacturers say that their products can be DIY installed, but require installation by a licensed plumber to maintain the warranty. Kind gets extra brownie points from us for not requiring this.  Shipping  Score: 9.00 Kind’s shipping policy is great, too: all orders of new, whole house water systems priced over $99.00 are entitled to free shipping within the Continental United States.  However, Kind doesn’t currently ship to Hawaii or Alaska at this time, and customers in Canada may have to pay a shipping fee. View Kind’s shipping policy here.  Returns Score: 7.00 Kind offers a 120-day money-back satisfaction guarantee for its products, which sounds great on the surface.  But there are a few stipulations to be aware of: customers have to pay the returns shipping fee, and they need to secure authorization before returning the product.  Found this review helpful? Comment below or share this article! Read the full article

Clearly Filtered vs LARQ: Objective, Data-Driven Comparison

Clearly Filtered and LARQ both sell high-end water filter pitchers that transcend the typical performance capabilities of a conventional carbon-based pitcher.  Is the Clearly Filtered pitcher or LARQ PureVis pitcher best? We’ve used our own testing data to compare both systems in this comprehensive review.  Overall Score: 8.78 Clearly Filtered Best For: Reduces the most contaminants Performance certified for some contaminants More affordable option Overall Score: 8.21 LARQ PureVis Best For: Prevents microorganism growth with integrated UV Most attractive design Best filter tracking experience with app connection In our testing, LARQ and Clearly Filtered both reduced most of the contaminants in our water, but Clearly Filtered has at least obtained a couple performance certifications for its filter. However, we were super reassured by the fact that the LARQ pitcher uses UV light to ensure filtered water is microorganism-free - something that Clearly Filtered doesn’t do. 📊 Our Testing Data At Water Filter Guru, we review water filters using our 6 key performance testing data. Here are the scores that LARQ and Clearly Filtered achieved in each test category: FactorClearly FilteredLARQContaminant Reduction8.248.14Filtration Rate10.007.00Design9.708.10Setup9.509.00Maintenance8.759.00Company9.008.35 The next table breaks our scoring system down into detail. You can see the sub-category scores that we combined to reach the overall scores for both pitchers.  FactorClearly FilteredLARQWinnerOverall Score8.788.21Clearly FilteredHealth Related Contaminants8.308.30TieAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42 & 53NoneClearly FilteredFiltration Rate2.27 GPH0.60 GPHClearly FilteredComponent QualityOutstandingOutstandingTieComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53, & 372NoneClearly FilteredSetupOutstandingExcellentClearly FilteredServicing RequirementsOutstandingExceptionalLARQCosts$0.55/ gal$0.54/ galLARQWarranty Length2 years1 yearClearly FilteredShippingFree shipping to all states$80 order thresholdClearly FilteredReturns30 days30 days (only if unopened)Clearly Filtered 🚰 Contaminant Reduction To dive into our testing process, we began by comparing the most important feature of all: contaminant reduction.  We tested our water before filtering it through the LARQ and Clearly Filtered systems, to find out which contaminants it contained. We then tested filtered water from both pitchers, and compared their contaminant reduction abilities.  We combined our own test data with official performance certifications from the WQA, NSF, or IAPMO to reach the scores in this category. Our Lab Test Results We lab-tested our water with Tap Score by SimpleLab, who sent us an interactive report for each water sample we tested.  The reports listed the contaminants detected, and how the concentrations of these contaminants compared to Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), which are stricter than federal legal limits for contaminants in drinking water.   Here’s a list of the contaminants detected in our unfiltered water, and how the Clearly Filtered and LARQ pitchers compared in reducing them.  We were pleased with both filters in this category - they both did a significantly better job at reducing the majority of contaminants in our water compared to most other pitchers we tested. But Clearly Filtered got the better score because it has a performance certification, while LARQ does not.  Health-Related Contaminants We first wanted to know which health-related contaminants our water contained, and which pitcher was best at reducing these. We used the same treated groundwater supply when testing both systems. In our water, 8 health-related contaminants were detected.  Fluoride and uranium were both detected at levels above the HGL, so we were the keenest to reduce these.  The full list of contaminants detected in our test can be found in the table below. Starting with LARQ, the pitcher reduced 100% uranium, barium, strontium, and molybdenum, as well as 97% copper, 88% sulfate, and 20% nitrate. Unfortunately, it didn’t reduce fluoride in our water at all.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher did a similarly great job at reducing 100% of uranium. It also reduced 100% copper - slightly more than LARQ - and 100% fluoride - much better than LARQ.  Additionally, the pitcher reduced 86% barium, 67% strontium, 53% molybdenum, 11% nitrate, and 3% sulfate. We also noticed that cobalt was present in our CF filtered water when it hadn’t been detected in our unfiltered water. Only 0.0054 PPM was detected, but we were confused by this outcome because the pitcher has been third-party tested to reduce cobalt by >98.31%. Aesthetic Contaminants Our unfiltered water contained around 1 PPM of chlorine. This was the only aesthetic contaminant detected in our test.  LARQ and Clearly Filtered both reduced 100% chlorine in our water, giving us exactly the outcome we’d been expecting given that both use carbon filtration media. No chlorine tastes/odors were noticeable in the water from either pitcher.   Minerals & Ions Neither LARQ nor Clearly Filtered is intended to purify or soften water, so we didn’t expect to see a big difference in our filtered water’s natural mineral content.   However, we learned that both pitchers had actually reduced the minerals in our water, which we would class as an unintended and undesirable outcome of their filtration processes.  The LARQ pitcher reduced calcium by 83%, and magnesium by 93%. It also reduced just under 50% sodium. 77.3 PPM of potassium was present in our filtered water when it wasn’t before, so we think the pitcher exchanged some minerals and metal ions with potassium using a cation exchange resin.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher reduced calcium by 32%, magnesium by 64%, and sodium by 42%. Potassium only increased by 2.5%. Performance Certifications We know that our own firsthand water quality testing can only tell us so much about a water filter’s performance because we can only assess its ability to reduce the contaminants present in our water.  That’s why performance certifications also contribute to our overall scoring system for contaminant reduction. The LARQ pitcher’s performance is only supported by third-party testing data, so it got the poorer score in this category.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher did better because it’s WQA certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 42 and Standard 53 - but it still didn’t get the best score because it’s only certified to reduce 3 contaminants: chlorine, PFOA, and PFOS. View the performance datasheet here. 🚦Filtration Rate Both pitchers use gravity filtration, so we measured their filtration rate in gallons per hour (GPH).  See how they compared in the next table.  ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateClearly Filtered10.002.27 GPHLARQ7.000.60 GPH When we tested the LARQ PureVis pitcher, it filtered 0.281 gallons of water in 28 minutes and 6 seconds, which gave it a filtration rate of 0.60 GPH. That’s slower than most other water filter pitchers we tested, including the Clearly Filtered pitcher, which had a filtration rate of 2.27 GPH (it treated 0.5 gallons of water in 13 minutes and 12 seconds). We did notice that we had to wait longer for our water to filter in the PureVis pitcher, but we got into the routine of filling the pitcher first thing in the morning, and there was enough filtered water for us when we needed it.  💲 Upfront Cost Something that LARQ and Clearly Filtered have in common is that they’re both on the higher end of the price range for water filter pitchers.  The LARQ PureVis pitcher cost $139 at the time that we got it to review, which makes it the most expensive water filter pitcher we’ve tested so far.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher cost $90, so it’s 2-3 times the price of the other pitchers we reviewed. In terms of value for money, we think both systems are worth their price if you specifically want what they’re offering.  The LARQ pitcher is the only water filter pitcher we’ve found that uses UV light to zap microorganisms in the filtered water. If your budget is bigger and you’re concerned about the possibility of bacteria and biofilm buildup in the filter media, you may be willing to spend more on the only pitcher to protect your water against pathogens.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher has a higher price tag because it provides much more comprehensive filtration than a basic carbon-based filter. The filter also has a longer lifespan than many other pitchers, so while it’s more expensive, it needs replacing less frequently.  ProductPriceClearly Filtered$90.00LARQ PureVis$139.00 📐 Design As they’re both water filter pitchers, the basic design of the LARQ and Clearly Filtered systems is the same.  Of all the pitchers we tested, Clearly Filtered and LARQ felt the most similar in their design quality.  The next table shows how we scored both filters for component quality and certifications. ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyClearly Filtered9.70OutstandingCertifiedLARQ PureVis8.10OutstandingNot certified Both systems got the same high score for component quality, but LARQ’s overall score in this category was hindered by its lack of a materials safety certification.  Component Quality  Most of the water filter pitchers we tested felt like they were made from relatively thin, flimsy plastics.  The LARQ PureVis and Clearly Filtered pitchers were the only two pitchers we used that felt like they were made from high-quality materials. Their plastics felt thicker, sturdier, and less “cheap” - a good thing given that they’re both more expensive than their competitors! LARQ’s filter is made from BPA-free PP (polypropylene), and the pitcher is made of BPA-free ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) and SMMA (styrene methyl methacrylate copolymer). According to the customer service rep we spoke to, the pitcher has been tested by the FDA for food contact safety. The Clearly Filtered pitcher is made of Tritan plastic, which is BPA-free and shouldn’t leach chemicals.  The plastics used in both pitchers are scratch-resistant, durable, and have good rigidity. But if you don’t want to store your filtered water in a plastic container, you may need to reconsider your options, as none of these brands currently sell glass pitchers.  Filter Materials LARQ and Clearly Filtered are both more advanced than their competitors when it comes to their filter materials, but in different ways.  LARQ sells two filters for the PureVis pitcher: the Essential filter and the Advanced filter. We went for the Advanced filter, which is activated carbon-based and reduces additional contaminants, including lead, disinfection byproducts, and PFOA/PFOS. We couldn’t find specific information on what the Advanced filter is made from, apart from that it’s carbon-derived. We’re pretty confident that the filter contains additional media - perhaps a cation exchange resin or KDF media - because it reduced contaminants like uranium and strontium, which activated carbon can’t typically target.  The pitcher also uses a UV wand, which emits UV light that kills microorganisms in water. UV is a safe, chemical-free method of water purification.  We know about a few more filter materials that are used by Clearly Filtered pitcher: it contains carbon block media, a composite shell, a woven stainless steel mesh screen, and several proprietary materials (again, judging by the filter’s contaminant reduction abilities, we think KDF media and ion exchange resin are used).  These materials are all commonly used for filtering water, and we couldn’t find any evidence to suggest that they could be dangerous or have health effects.  Materials Safety Certification We get extra reassurance about the safety and quality of the materials used in a water filter if it has a materials safety certification by the NSF, IAPMO, or the WQA. LARQ doesn’t have a materials safety certification, while Clearly Filtered actually exceeded our expectations with two certifications:  - A WQA certification to NSF Standard 372 for lead-free design - A materials safety certification as a component of its performance certifications ⚙️ Setup Although their designs are pretty similar, LARQ and Clearly Filtered each have their own specific setup requirements.  Here are our setup times and scores for both systems.   ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeClearly Filtered9.50Around 15 minutesLARQ9.00Around 20 minutes The LARQ PureVis pitcher had the most involved setup process. We had to soak the filter for 10 minutes, charge the battery pack for the UV wand (we did this overnight), and set up the app, which needed to be paired to the pitcher via Bluetooth. The app isn’t essential, but it makes it easy to track the UV battery and filter life, so we recommend taking the extra time to download it.  In all, it took us around 20 minutes to set up the filter, not including the time it took to charge the battery pack. The Clearly Filtered pitcher was a bit easier to assemble because we only had the filter to prepare.  The process took us 15 minutes in total, including priming the filter with the included priming bag. This wasn’t challenging, but it did require a bit more effort than most other water filter pitchers, which generally just needed their filters rinsed under running water before use. For both pitchers, we also washed the reservoirs before we used them, ensuring they were clean and free from any debris. 🔧 Maintenance We were also interested to see how similar the LARQ PureVis and Clearly Filtered pitchers were in terms of their maintenance requirements and costs.  We’ve shared our scores in each of these sub-categories in the table below.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsClearly Filtered8.75Outstanding$0.55/ galLARQ9.00Exceptional$0.54/ gal LARQ got the higher maintenance score because its servicing requirements were slightly easier.  Servicing Requirements  The filter in the LARQ PureVis system should last up to 3 months of use or filter up to 60 gallons, which is pretty average for a water pitcher filter. We soaked our filter replacements following the same instructions as for the initial filter. After installing the new filter, we reset the wand, so it was ready to track the lifespan of the replacement filter.  There was one other maintenance commitment that was unique to this system: charging the UV wand with the included magnetic USB charger. We did this around once a month, or whenever the light on the lid flashed green or we were alerted to a low battery on the app.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher has a slightly better 100-gallon filter capacity, with a lifespan of around 4 months on average. Replacement filters needed priming following the same process as the first filter. This required a bit more effort than LARQ, although it wasn’t tricky. There’s no filter change indicator on the CF pitcher, so we had to track the filter lifespan ourselves.  For the Clearly Filtered pitcher, we cleaned out the pitcher and reservoir with water and soap 1-2 times a week. The LARQ pitcher’s self-cleaning UV functionality meant we could clean it out less frequently; more like once or twice a month.  Maintenance Costs Given their higher upfront costs, we were keen to see how LARQ and Clearly Filtered compared when it came to ongoing servicing costs.  The LARQ PureVis pitcher has an ongoing cost of $0.54/ gallon, and Clearly Filtered has a cost per gallon of $0.55, so both were very similar here.  We found that we were spending around double the price of most other pitchers for maintenance, but we still think the value for money is there. Again, it depends on what you’re looking for - if you want the exclusive benefits of the LARQ or CF pitcher, you might feel that it’s worth spending more money on in the long run. 🏢 Company Our last point of comparison was to analyze LARQ and Clearly Filtered as companies. This is a hugely important factor to us because we want to know that we can trust a company and that we’ll be supported in the case of an issue with their product.  Here’s how the two companies compared for their warranty, shipping, and returns offerings.  ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsClearly Filtered9.002 yearsFree shipping, all orders to all states30 daysLARQ8.351 yearFree shipping is available for orders above $80 within the contiguous US30 days (only if unopened) Clearly Filtered was the winner here across all three subcategories.  Warranty Length  LARQ offers a 1-year limited warranty that covers defective materials or components. This is one of the best water filter pitcher warranties we’ve seen, and Clearly Filtered is the only company we’ve come across that does even better with its 2-year warranty.   Shipping  Clearly Filtered provides free economy shipping to all 50 states, with no minimum spend, while with LARQ, free shipping is only available for orders above $80 within the contiguous US. That means your initial purchase of the pitcher will be eligible for free shipping, but ordering replacement filters will probably incur a shipping fee.  Returns Both LARQ and Clearly Filtered offer a 30-day returns policy from the day of purchase, but LARQ has stricter rules: the pitcher can only be returned for a refund if it’s unused and in its original packaging  ⛔️ System Setbacks & Flaws The LARQ and Clearly Filtered systems are two of the best water filter pitchers we’ve reviewed so far, but we still identified a few setbacks and flaws that we want to mention here.   Clearly Filtered Setbacks - Also quite costly – The CF pitcher is cheaper than the LARQ PureVis, but it’s still up to three times the price of most other pitchers we tested.  - Introduced cobalt – We were surprised to see cobalt detected in the water post-filtration  - No microbiological protection – Another con of the CF pitcher compared to LARQ is that it doesn’t protect the filtered water from microorganisms.  LARQ PureVis Setbacks - Expensive – At $139, the LARQ pitcher isn’t the best for folks with smaller budgets.   - Not certified – Unlike Clearly Filtered, the PureVis pitcher isn’t certified for contaminant reduction or for materials safety. - Didn’t target all contaminants – While the pitcher did a good job at reducing many contaminants in our water, it didn’t address fluoride. 🆚 Clearly Filtered or LARQ: Which Should You Choose? So, is Clearly Filtered or LARQ the better offering? That depends on your own situation and preferences.  Go For Clearly Filtered If: You only want to buy a water filter pitcher that has been certified for performance and materials safety. Your priority is to filter your water as thoroughly as possible with a comprehensive solution. You prefer to spend less than $100 on a water filter pitcher. You want to reduce fluoride Choose LARQ if: You want the reassurance of microbiological protection for your filtered water.  You like the idea of being able to track the filter and UV wand lifespan with a Bluetooth app. You prefer the unique look and design of the LARQ pitcher and its smart features. Related: - Clearly Filtered vs Epic Comparison - Clearly Filtered vs Brita Comparison - Clearly Filtered vs ZeroWater Comparison - LARQ vs ZerWater Comparison Read the full article

LARQ vs ZeroWater: A Data Driven Comparison

LARQ and ZeroWater are two water filter pitchers with their own unique performance features: the LARQ PureVis pitcher protects filtered water from pathogens with a built-in UV wand, and the ZeroWater pitcher reduces TDS (total dissolved solids) down to 0.  We’ve tested both systems ourselves, using our own objective performance data and subjective analysis to compare them across numerous testing categories. We consolidated our notes in this detailed LARQ vs ZeroWater comparison.  Overall Score: 8.21 LARQ PureVis Best For: Higher-quality design Prevents microorganism growth with UV light Better warranty & returns policy Overall Score: 8.62 ZeroWater Best For: Performance certified Reduces more contaminants More pitcher models & capacities to choose from In our testing, ZeroWater reduced the most contaminants, but its performance wasn’t perfect: disinfection byproducts were detected in our filtered water. LARQ also reduced many contaminants, but not as effectively. However, it offered protection against pathogens in our filtered water - a unique benefit that ZeroWater didn’t have. 📊 Our Testing Data At Water Filter Guru, we’ve made it our mission to test and review as many water filters as possible.  We currently use the same scoring system for all the water filters we assess. This involves putting the filters through a series of tests to score them across 6 different factors that impact their performance, quality, and overall value. We’ve shared LARQ and ZeroWater’s scores in the next table.  FactorLARQZeroWaterContaminant Reduction8.148.34Filtration Rate7.0010.00Design8.108.80Setup9.009.50Maintenance9.008.25Company8.357.50 The table below shares a more comprehensive insight into all the data that was used to obtain the overall performance scores for the pitchers.  FactorLARQZeroWaterWinnerOverall Score8.218.62ZeroWaterHealth Related Contaminants8.308.30TieAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNoneNSF 42, 53ZeroWaterFiltration Rate0.60 GPH2.62 GPHZeroWaterComponent QualityOutstandingFairLARQComponent CertificationNoneNSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 372ZeroWaterSetupExcellentOutstandingZeroWaterServicing RequirementsExceptionalOutstandingLARQCosts$0.54/ gal$0.70/ galLARQWarranty Length1 year90 days (vessels), 30 days (filters)LARQShipping$80 order threshold$60 order thresholdZeroWaterReturns30 daysNoneLARQ 🚰 Contaminant Reduction The critical performance element that a water filter has to get right is contaminant reduction.  We wanted to see how effectively the LARQ PureVis and ZeroWater pitchers performed in this category. And that meant looking beyond their performance claims to test data that we knew for certain was real and valid.  To do this, we tested the water filtered through each pitcher to see how they improved our own water quality. We also searched WQA, NSF, or IAPMO databases to see if the pitchers had any official performance certifications for reducing certain contaminants.  Our Lab Test Results We tested our water with Tap Score tests by SimpleLab, which delivered our test results in the form of an interactive report.  Our test water was treated water from a shared well, so it contained a few contaminants that are typically found in groundwater.   Tap Score has established its own Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), which are stricter than the federal MCLs, and we used these to evaluate the safety of the impurities detected in our water.  You can find our test data in the next table.  Both pitchers did well at reducing contaminants in general, but the ZeroWater had the overall higher % of contaminants reduced.  Health-Related Contaminants We started by looking at the health-related contaminants detected in our water, and how LARQ and ZeroWater compared in reducing these.  There were 8 contaminants with possible health effects listed in our test report, and we were the most concerned about 2 of these: fluoride and uranium, which were detected at levels exceeding the HGL. See the table below for the full list of health-related contaminants detected.  Starting with the contaminants present above the HGLs: - The LARQ PureVis pitcher reduced 100% uranium, but 0% fluoride. LARQ doesn’t claim fluoride reduction, so we weren’t surprised by this outcome, even if we were a little disappointed.  - ZeroWater reduced 100% fluoride and uranium, which is exactly what we wanted to see.  As for the other health-related contaminants: - LARQ reduced 100% barium, strontium, and molybdenum, as well as 97% copper, 88% sulfate, and 20% nitrate. - Like LARQ, ZeroWater reduced 100% barium, strontium, and molybdenum, and 97% copper. It also did better at reducing 100% nitrate and sulfate.  Their performances were similar, but ZeroWater did better overall, and we recommend it over LARQ if you specifically want to reduce fluoride or nitrate.  Aesthetic Contaminants We used a chlorine test strip to test our water at home, and 1 PPM of chlorine was detected. This affected our aesthetic score as chlorine is considered an aesthetic contaminant - it can impact water’s taste and smell.  LARQ and ZeroWater both use activated carbon filter media, so we were unsurprised (but pleased!) to see that they both reduced 100% chlorine.   Minerals & Ions Our preference with a water filter pitcher is to reduce contaminants that could be harmful to our health while retaining healthy trace minerals and salts.  But some of the water filter pitchers we tested surprised us by reducing healthy minerals, even though we typically only associate mineral loss with purification systems (like reverse osmosis). Both LARQ and ZeroWater reduced beneficial minerals in our water:  - The PureVis pitcher reduced calcium by 83%, magnesium by 93%, and sodium by 50%. It also increased potassium from 0 PPM to 77.3 PPM. We think it uses a cation exchange resin, which exchanges potassium with other unwanted ions (as well as these minerals).  - The ZeroWater pitcher reduced 100% of magnesium and sodium, and 99% of calcium. This was less surprising to us given that the filter is supposed to reduce dissolved solids, and minerals contribute to TDS.  Mineral reduction isn’t a ranking factor in our testing. Performance Certifications Performance certifications give us insight into a water filter’s performance beyond what we can gather with our own data.  We can only test a filter’s ability to reduce the contaminants detected in our own water. So it’s helpful to know what else a filter has been officially certified to reduce.  The LARQ pitcher only has third-party testing data, which is helpful to reference but not as reassuring as official performance certifications.  The ZeroWater pitcher has NSF certifications to Standard 42, for reducing chlorine tastes and odors, and Standard 53, for reducing mercury, lead, PFOA, PFOS, and hexavalent chromium. It got the better score in this category, although still not the best, because it’s only certified to reduce a fraction of the contaminants that the manufacturer claims it can reduce. 🚦Filtration Rate We timed how long it took for water to be filtered in the ZeroWater and LARQ pitchers, then used this data to compare their filtration rates.  You can see our scores for both systems in the next table. ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateLARQ7.000.60 GPHZeroWater10.002.62 GPH The LARQ PureVis pitcher filtered 0.281 gallons of water in 28 minutes and 6 seconds. It had the slowest filtration rate of all the water filter pitchers we tested*: just 0.60 GPH. In comparison, the ZeroWater pitcher’s filtration rate was over 2 GPH faster: 2.62 GPH. It filtered 0.391 gallons of water in 8 minutes and 56 seconds. It was on the other end of the scale in our testing, as one of the fastest water filter pitchers we used. *2.30 GPM was the average filtration rate of the 8 pitchers we tested.  Since LARQ’s filtration media doesn’t appear to be particularly advanced or complex, we’re not sure why its filtration rate was so much slower than ZeroWater’s.  We tested both filters when they were fairly new, and we know it’s normal for filtration rate to reduce over time, as the filter becomes saturated with contaminants. This leads us to wonder how much slower the LARQ pitcher may become, and how this could affect our access to filtered water.  💲 Upfront Cost We noticed a big difference between the upfront cost of the LARQ and ZeroWater pitchers, too.  The LARQ PureVis pitcher cost $139 when we got it to test. This included the first filter. (Important: we upgraded to the Advanced filter, which is more effective than the Essential filter and adds around $7 onto the total cost.)  So far, LARQ is the most expensive water filter pitcher brand we’ve encountered. Most pitchers cost less than $100, and many even cost within $50 - including the ZeroWater 12-Cup Ready-Pour Pitcher, which cost $39.99 at the time of our review.  While LARQ doesn’t offer much more than ZeroWater in terms of filtration and contaminant reduction, it is the only pitcher we’ve come across that uses UV light to sterilize the pitcher vessel and protect the filtered water from pathogens.  If you think you’ll get a lot of value from this feature, then you might feel that spending $100 more than you would for ZeroWater is justified. It depends on your budget and your expectations.  It’s also worth factoring in ongoing value for money. We think one of the reasons why ZeroWater is priced affordably is that its filter lifespan is pretty terrible (we’ve discussed this in more detail later). That means you’ll need to buy a replacement filter for the pitcher much more frequently than you would for LARQ. ProductPriceLARQ PureVis$139.00ZeroWater 12-Cup Ready-Pour Pitcher$39.99 📐 Design The key design components of LARQ and ZeroWater are the same. Their only real differences are their water-holding capacities (LARQ holds 8 cups, while the ZeroWater pitcher we tested holds 12 cups), and the fact that the LARQ pitcher also features a UV wand.  Here’s how the two systems compared in their design quality. ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyLARQ8.10OutstandingNot certifiedZeroWater8.80FairCertified It was close competition in this category, but ZeroWater’s overall design score was slightly higher because it has a materials safety certification.  Filter Models There’s only one LARQ pitcher model: the 8-cup PureVis pitcher, available in clear/blue and clear/white.  ZeroWater’s water filter pitcher and dispenser range is much more extensive and includes: - 7-Cup Ready Pour Pitcher - EcoFilter 10-Cup Pitcher - 10-Cup Pitcher - 10-Cup Ready Pour Pitcher - 10 Cup Round Ready Pour Pitcher - 12-Cup Ready Pour Pitcher - 12-Cup Ready Read Dispenser - 20-Cup Ready Pour Dispenser - 22-Cup Ready Read Dispenser - 30-Cup Dispenser - 32-Cup Ready Read Dispenser - 40-Cup Glass Dispenser - 52- Cup Ready Read Dispenser ZeroWater might appeal to you more if you like having lots of choices or you want to upgrade to a dispenser. There’s also the option to go for the glass dispenser if you want to avoid plastics in your pitcher design. But if you’re just looking for a conventional water filter pitcher in terms of size and design materials, the LARQ pitcher should suit your needs.   Component Quality  There are advantages of using cheaper plastics to make water filter pitchers: they’re lightweight, moldable, less likely to crack or shatter than glass, and help keep costs low. But plastic can also feel flimsier and cheaper than other materials, which affects the system’s quality and durability.  We did have a few issues with the quality of some of the water filter pitchers we tested, including the ZeroWater pitcher. It’s made from BPA-free polypropylene and ABS (a terpolymer), and we noted that it felt thinner, more brittle, and cheaper than the LARQ pitcher.  The LARQ pitcher was one of two systems (the other one was the Clearly Filtered pitcher) that felt sturdier, thicker, and better quality than the other pitchers we tested. The pitcher itself is made from BPA-free ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) and SMMA (styrene methyl methacrylate copolymer), while the filter is made from polypropylene. Issues & Setbacks With Plastics Both water filter pitchers are predominantly made from plastic.  We’ve done a lot of research on plastics and the potential for bisphenols and microplastics leaching, and we think this is a possibility that can’t be completely ruled out when using a water filter pitcher.  For instance, all the pitchers we tested use BPA-free materials, but this 2020 study led by the University of Missouri noted that other bisphenols used instead, like BPS, also have serious health effects and “still aren’t safe for people to use”.  We also found evidence that UV exposure increases the leaching or formation of “problematic plastic-associated substances”. This made us concerned about the safety of using UV light in the LARQ pitcher. But we couldn’t find any evidence that UV exposure causes plastic leaching from ABS and SMMA (the two plastics used in the LARQ pitcher).  As we mentioned, ZeroWater sells a glass dispenser, which uses the same filter as its plastic pitchers, and you may prefer this option if you want to reduce your water’s contact with plastic (the filters themselves still contain plastic).  Filter Materials & Media The design of the filter used in a water pitcher affects several factors, including filtration rate, filter lifespan, and the contaminants that can be removed.  Generally, the more comprehensive the filter design, and the more filter media that are used, the more thorough and effective the filtration process. We noticed differences in performance between LARQ and ZeroWater, and we think this was due to their unique filter designs.   LARQ only discloses one media that’s used in the PureVis Advanced filter: activated carbon. Since the filter reduced uranium, barium, and other contaminants that activated carbon alone can’t address, we think it also uses an ion exchange resin. Although not part of the filter itself, we also want to mention the LARQ pitcher’s UV wand, since it’s their unique selling point and a design feature we haven’t seen on any other water filter pitcher. The filtered water gets treated with UV light, which ensures microorganisms don’t build up in the pitcher vessel, reducing the need for regular cleaning. The ZeroWater 5-Stage Filter also uses activated carbon media, alongside cation and anion exchange resins. These media are combined with three layers of physical filtration. The filter’s comprehensive design explains ZeroWater’s ability to reduce TDS down to 0.  Materials Safety Certification We put a lot of value on materials safety certifications, and they’re one of our two scoring criteria within the design category. If a filter is certified for materials safety, it tells us that a trusted third-party organization has tested the system and confirmed that its design materials are safe for their intended use.  The LARQ PureVis pitcher currently isn’t certified for materials safety.  ZeroWater, which does have a materials safety certification as a component of its NSF certifications, got the better score here.  ⚙️ Setup LARQ and ZeroWater are both great choices for folks who want a water filter that’s quick and easy to install.  The pitchers got high scores for setup, but ZeroWater was the winner in this category. Take a look at our scores below.  ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeLARQ9.00Around 15 to 20 minutesZeroWater9.50Less than 10 minutes We followed the same setup process for the LARQ PureVis and ZeroWater pitchers, give or take a few unique setup requirements for each system. For both pitchers, we started by unboxing and washing the pitcher and reservoir, then left them to dry. The filter prep process varied slightly between the two.  ZeroWater was the easiest at this stage because we didn’t have to soak it, prime it, or hold it under running water. We could just install it and use it straight away.  LARQ’s filter was still easy to set up, but it took longer because we had to soak in water for 10 minutes.  The ZeroWater pitcher was now ready to be used, but we still had a few additional tasks for the LARQ pitcher:  - We charged the UV wand overnight. - We also planned to downloaded the LARQ app on our iPad (it’s currently not compatible with Android devices), which allowed us to track our filter life and UV battery remotely. We could also track our water usage and make sure we were staying hydrated, which was a unique benefit of the LARQ pitcher.  - We set the pitcher’s filter replacement timer. - We filtered and discarded our first batch of water. 🔧 Maintenance Again, maintenance differed slightly between LARQ and ZeroWater because of LARQ’s additional UV feature.  Here’s how we scored the filters in this category.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsLARQ9.00Exceptional$0.54/ galZeroWater8.25Outstanding$0.70/ gal Despite its extra maintenance requirements, LARQ got higher scores than ZeroWater here.  Servicing Requirements  For both pitchers, we had to replace the filter at the end of its lifespan. We had to soak our LARQ filter, then filter and discard the first batch of water, as we’d done in the setup process. Again, ZeroWater’s filter could be unboxed and used instantly, which was a big bonus. However, what let ZeroWater down was its frequency of servicing.   The LARQ PureVis Advanced filter has a 60-gallon capacity and lasts up to 3 months, while ZeroWater’s capacity ranges from 8 to 40 gallons, depending on your water quality. We saw some customer reviews that said the filter lasted only 1-2 weeks. You’ll need to invest more time and money into maintenance for this pitcher.  We had an additional maintenance task to remember for the LARQ pitcher: charging the UV wand. The filter change light also indicated when the UV wand needed charging, so, once we’d learned what the different colors meant, we used this as guidance for all our maintenance tasks. Plus, the app also notified us when the battery needed to be charged, so there was no way to forget.  Both pitchers also needed washing out occasionally. We did this once or twice a week for ZeroWater, but we only cleaned our LARQ pitcher around twice a month because its UV wand protects against pathogens in the pitcher (however, scale and other debris can still form).  Maintenance Costs We’ve mentioned that the ZeroWater filter pitcher was cheaper than LARQ upfront, but the roles were reversed in terms of their ongoing costs.  The LARQ PureVis Advanced filter has an ongoing cost of $0.54/ gallon, which is around twice the price of the average ongoing spend of the pitchers we tested. Note: The Essential filter has a slightly lower maintenance cost, but there’s not a substantial difference between the two. The ZeroWater pitcher had an even higher ongoing cost of $0.70/ gallon, making it the most expensive pitcher we’ve used so far. The main reason for this is its very short filter lifespan, meaning we were having to replace the filter up to six times as often as we were with LARQ.    We think the LARQ pitcher has the best ongoing value for money, but if you’re looking for affordability, you may prefer a lower-spend pitcher, like Brita, Epic, or PUR.  🏢 Company We know that many folks don’t feel comfortable investing in a water filter unless they can be certain that the company behind the product is trustworthy. That’s why we also reviewed and compared the LARQ and ZeroWater pitchers based on their company offerings.  ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsLARQ8.351 yearFree shipping is available for orders above $80 within the contiguous US30 daysZeroWater7.5090 days (vessels), 30 days (filters)Free Read the full article

Fact or Fiction: Does Hard Water Cause Kidney Stones?

Kidney stones are tiny yet extremely painful formations of minerals and salts within the kidneys, affecting millions of people worldwide. They vary in size and symptoms may range from nausea, sharp back pain to discolored urine. Amidst the factors that contribute to kidney stone formation, one question some have is, does the water we drink play a role? In this article, we dive into how kidney stones form and answer this question. Fact or fiction: does hard water cause kidney stones? 📌 Key Takeaways - Kidney stones are deposits of minerals and salts that form inside the kidneys. - Drinking hard water does not cause calcium kidney stones - The most important thing to prevent urinary stone disease is drinking adequate water (regardless of if it's soft or hard water). 🧐 What are Kidney Stones? Kidney stones are deposits of minerals and salts that form inside the kidneys, creating hard crystals. These crystals vary in size and are very painful. Typically symptoms will begin when the stone moves around or enters the ureters. The most common symptoms may include sharp pain below your ribs on your back and side, pain or burning when urinating, discolored urine, blood in urine, nausea, and vomiting. As long as they are caught early, kidney stones rarely cause permanent damage. Depending on the situation, treatment may include proper hydration and pain medications or surgery depending on the circumstance. 🔎 How Do Kidney Stones Form? Stones are typically formed when there are more substances such as calcium, uric acid or oxalate than the fluid in your urine can dilute. When urine becomes concentrated, this allows the minerals in the urine to crystallize and stick together. There are a variety of different types of kidney stones including calcium oxalate stones, uric acid, cystine stones, struvite stones. Calcium oxalate stones are the most common type of kidney stones. These stones can be formed due to inadequate fluid intake and inadequate calcium intake. This is because calcium binds to oxalate in the gut, hindering its absorption. When there is not enough calcium in the diet, oxalate and calcium do not bind in the gut. This leads to more absorption of free oxalate and therefore more oxalate excreted via urine. More oxalate in the urine leads to an ideal environment for kidney stones to occur. Research shows a diet low in calcium increases your risk for kidney stone formation. Risk Factors for Developing Kidney Stones While there are no definitive, "single" root causes for kidney stones, there are several factors that put you at higher risk for developing them. - History. If you have a personal or family history of kidney stones, you're more likely to develop kidney stones in the future. - Dehydration. When you don't drink enough water day after day this also increases your likelihood of kidney stone formation.Certain climates that are hot and dry may put you at higher risk for dehydration and therefore higher risk for stone formation. - Dietary habits. If you eat food that is high in sodium, sugar or protein this may also increase your risk for developing certain kinds of kidney stones. High sodium diets result in an increased amount of calcium your kidneys have to filter and increase risk for developing stones. - Medications or supplements. If you take certain dietary supplements, laxatives (if you used in excess), calcium antacids, and other medications such as those that treat depression can also increase your risk for kidney stone formation. - Obesity. An elevated body mass index (BMI) has been linked to increased risk for kidney stones. - Certain digestive conditions. such as short gut syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and history of gastric bypass surgery cause changes to the way you digest that affect your absorption of calcium and water. This increases the amount of those crystal forming substances in your urine. - Certain medical conditions. Renal tubular acidosis, hyperparathyroidism, cystinuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections may also increase risk. 🚱 What is Hard Water? Water that has a high level of dissolved minerals is called hard water. The minerals that typically contribute to water hardness are calcium and magnesium. However, ferrous iron, chloride and sulfate and trace amounts of metals may also be present. 🤔 Is There a Link Between Kidney Stones and Hard Water? You may ask yourself, if there is higher amounts of calcium in hard water, does this mean it can increase the likelihood of kidney stone formation? The simple answer is no, there is not enough evidence to support this at this time. As mentioned earlier, research demonstrates that inadequate calcium intake is correlated with an increase in stone formation. On the flip side of that coin, there is some research that demonstrates that high doses of calcium outside of meals times may also lead to increased stone formation. However, there is limited research to support a correlation between hard water consumption and kidney stones. Most hard water contains about 50 to 75 mg calcium and daily recommended intake of calcium is 1000-15300mg per day. It is unlikely that someone who drinks hard water would significantly over consume calcium to increase likelihood of stone formation. While there have been a few studies that have suggested a link between hard water consumption and kidney stone prevalence, most of these studies are outdated and do not demonstrate causation. In fact, whether you drink hard water or soft water the most important thing is that you drink plenty of water to prevent dehydration. This will significantly reduce your risk of developing kidney stones. 📝 Ways to Prevent Kidney Stones So, how do we prevent kidney stone formation? Well, we can prevent them from forming by decreasing our risk factors. There are some we may not be able to control such as family history or certain medical conditions. However, we can certainly address other modifiable risk factors such as fluid intake and diet. See below for ways to reduce your risk of kidney stones. - Stay hydrated. Drinking plenty of water will help dilute your urine. Make sure to drink at least 64 oz of water daily. - Reduce your intake of salt, sugar and protein. - Eat more fruits and vegetables. - Weight loss may be helpful if you're overweight. - If you have recurrent kidney stones or kidney stone disease, talk to your doctor about any medications or supplements that may be contributing. 📑 Conclusion In this discussion surrounding kidney stone etiology, the relationship with hard water seems to be used as a marketing technique for companies that sell water softeners. If you prefer soft water for other reasons such as it being "easier on the pipes" this makes sense. However, there is no need to switch over to soft water if you have had kidney stones. The link between kidney stone formation and hard water remains nebulous and unfounded. Whether you drink calcium-rich hard water or softer alternatives, the main rule remains true - hydration is paramount for prevention of kidney stones. Simply by drinking enough fluids we dilute that risk of kidney stone formation. Continue reading: - Understanding How Hard Water Might Lead to Dandruff - Can Drinking Excessive Water Be Dangerous? The Truth About Water Intoxication - Ideal Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) for Health, According to an RDN ❔ Frequently Asked Questions Can Hard Water Give You Kidney Stones? No, there is no such thing as hard water kidney stones. There are a variety of risk factors that increase your risk for renal stones and hard water is not considered one. When it comes to water, the most important thing is making sure you drink enough (regardless of if it is soft or hard water). Drinking water in adequate amounts will help dilute your urine and prevent the crystal forming substances from crystallizing. What Type of Water is Best for Kidney Stones? Whether you prefer hard or soft water, it doesn't matter! The most important thing is that you drink plenty of water each day. Aim for at least 8 to 10 cups per day. If you're a heavy sweater, live in a hot climate or exercise frequently, you may need more. Does a Water Filter Help with Kidney Stones? No, a water filter will not help with kidney stones. There is no research to support this. If you have had kidney stones, make sure you bring in a kidney stone so your doctor can identify the type of kidney stone you may be having. After that, make an appointment with a Registered Dietitian to review specific changes you can make to your diet to prevent kidney stone recurrence. Read the full article

Clearly Filtered vs Epic Water Pitchers Compared

Clearly Filtered and Epic Water have probably both caught your eye if you’ve been researching water filter pitchers that can reduce as many contaminants as possible from water. Both manufacturers are making big performance claims - and we were keen to see whether or not they could live up to them.  We tested both, putting them through a series of objective tests to compare them across a range of performance categories, including contaminant reduction, filtration speed, design quality, setup, maintenance, and more. Overall Score: 8.78 Clearly Filtered Best For: Eliminating fluoride & other contaminants Some performance certifications Highest-quality pitcher design Also certified for materials safety Discount: Get 10% off - Click Here for Code Overall Score: 8.90 Epic Pure Best For: Reducing impurities below HGL guidelines Not introducing unwanted substances More affordable ongoing cost Longer filter lifespan Discount: Get 20% off - Click Here for Code Clearly Filtered is certified for the reduction of several contaminants (which comprises a materials safety certification too) and did a better job at fluoride reduction in our testing. But Epic did better overall at reducing all contaminants to below the testing lab’s HGL, and it didn’t introduce anything into our water. 📊 Our Testing Data We use a rigorous testing process for all the water filters we assess, which involves evaluating them across 6 performance categories. We personally assessed the Clearly Filtered and Epic pitchers, using our own objective data wherever possible to ensure non-bias. Here’s the data we used when testing both pitchers. FactorClearly FilteredEpic WaterContaminant Reduction8.249.00Filtration Rate10.0010.00Design9.706.00Setup9.509.50Maintenance8.759.50Company9.008.95 Within these testing categories, we combined numerous data subcategories to reach our final scores. You can see this data in the table below. FactorClearly FilteredEpic WaterWinnerOverall Score8.788.90Epic WaterHealth Related Contaminants8.309.30Epic WaterAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53NoneClearly FilteredFiltration Rate2.27 GPH2.23 GPHClearly FilteredComponent QualityOutstandingUnsatisfactoryClearly FilteredComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53, 372NoneClearly FilteredSetupOutstandingOutstandingTieServicing RequirementsOutstandingOutstandingTieCosts$0.55/ gal$0.31/ galEpic WaterWarranty Length2 yearsLifetimeEpic WaterShippingFree shipping to all statesFree shipping for Water Club membersClearly FilteredReturns30 daysLifetimeEpic Water 🚰 Contaminant Reduction We started by comparing the Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure pitchers for their contaminant reduction abilities. There were two factors that we considered here:  - Which contaminants the systems reduced from our water in our own testing  - Whether or not the manufacturers had obtained performance certifications by the NSF, WQA, or IAMPO Our Lab Test Results We filtered our treated groundwater supply in the Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure filters, using SimpleLab’s Tap Score city water test to compare the quality of our unfiltered water with the filtered water from each pitcher. The interactive Tap Score reports listed all the contaminants detected in our water, so we could see how each pitcher reduced them. We evaluated the safety of these contaminants in our water by comparing them to Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs). We’ve shared the contaminants addressed by each filter in the table below. Epic reduced all health-related contaminants to below the HGLs, and it didn’t introduce any unwanted contaminants to our water, so it got the higher score here.  Health-Related Contaminants 8 contaminants with possible health effects were detected in our unfiltered water. Fluoride and uranium were present in concentrations exceeding the Tap Score HGL, so we were the keenest to reduce these.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher did a great job at reducing almost every health-related contaminant in our water, including 100% fluoride, uranium, and copper, as well as 86% barium, 67% strontium, 53% molybdenum, 11% nitrate, and just 3% sulfate.  Our results were positive overall, but there was one outcome that brought down the pitcher’s overall score: 0.0054 PPM cobalt was detected in our filtered water when it hadn’t been present in our unfiltered water. Clearly Filtered’s third-party test data says it can reduce >98.31% of this heavy metal, so we’re not sure why our water’s cobalt concentrations actually increased.  The Epic Pure pitcher also reduced 100% uranium and copper. Additionally, it reduced 100% phosphorous, and did better than Clearly Filtered at reducing sulfate by 92%. It also reduced 57% molybdenum (4% more than Clearly Filtered) and 20% nitrate (9% more than the CF pitcher). But it did a poorer job at reducing just 41% barium and 27% fluoride. No new contaminants were detected in our filtered water, so Epic got a better score in this category. Aesthetic Contaminants Our unfiltered water contained around 1 PPM of chlorine, and the Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure pitchers both reduced this contaminant down to 0 PPM - exactly the result we wanted to see.  Both pitchers use some form of activated carbon filtration media, which is the most popular choice for reducing chlorine, tastes, and odors.  Minerals & pH  We expected that Clearly Filtered and Epic would reduce harmful contaminants in our water while retaining healthy ions like calcium and magnesium.  But the Clearly Filtered pitcher surprised us by reducing calcium by 32% and magnesium by 64%, as well as sodium by 48%. This was unusual to us since Clearly Filtered states that the pitcher doesn’t remove healthy minerals. But our water’s pH wasn’t affected - in fact, it actually increased from 7.4 to 8. The Epic Pure pitcher didn’t reduce healthy minerals. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium actually increased slightly, although this was likely just a detection difference in our lab testing. We preferred this outcome because we’d rather retain the beneficial ions in our water, but this category didn’t influence our overall contaminant reduction scoring.  Performance Certifications Alongside its third-party testing data, Clearly Filtered has obtained a performance certification for its filter.  The system has a WQA certification to NSF/ANSI Standard 42 and Standard 53, for the reduction of chlorine, PFOA, and PFOS. That means that 3 out of the 365 contaminants on Clearly Filtered’s performance data sheet can be corroborated with an official certification.  The Epic Pure filter’s contaminant reduction is only supported by third-party performance testing data, so it got the poorer score in this category.  🚦Filtration Rate We also wanted to compare how quickly the Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure pitchers filtered our water.  Our aim isn’t to find the fastest-filtering pitcher. But we record the filtration speed of the filters we test to check that they’re performing “normally” in this category compared to the average.  The next table documents the filtration rates we recorded for both systems, measured in gallons per hour (GPH).  ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateClearly Filtered10.002.27 GPHEpic Water10.002.23 GPH The average filtration rate of the 8 water filter pitchers we tested was 2.30 GPM. The Clearly Filtered pitcher was almost dead-on average, with a filtration rate of 2.27 GPH. We calculated its filtration rate based on its ability to filter 0.5 gallons of water in 13 minutes and 12 seconds.  The Epic Pure pitcher was only slightly slower. We recorded its filtration rate as 2.23 GPH, after it filtered 0.453 gallons of water in 12 minutes and 13 seconds. Both filters were fairly new when we tested them, and this likely meant that their scores were slightly higher than they’d be in a few weeks’ time (filtration rate reduces as the filter gets older). 💲 Upfront Cost Epic was the winner in our upfront cost comparison - but which pitcher did we think was the better value for money? The Clearly Filtered is one of the more expensive pitchers we’ve tested, with an upfront cost of $90 (including the first filter). We could get a discount if we signed up to Clearly Filtered’s subscription service for replacement filters. The Epic Pure pitcher (with the first filter included) costs $69, so it’s a bit cheaper upfront. Epic also has a filter replacement subscription service that reduces the upfront cost of the pitcher if you subscribe.  The Epic pitcher has a smaller water-holding capacity than Clearly Filtered (8.5 cups versus Clearly Filtered’s 10 cups), although the Pure filter has a higher 150-gallon capacity versus Clearly Filtered’s 100 gallons.  We think both pitchers are equally good value for money based on the contaminants they’ve been tested to reduce. They’re more expensive than the simple carbon-based filter pitchers, and this reflects their enhanced performance capabilities.  ProductPriceFilters IncludedClearly Filtered pitcher$90.001Epic Pure$69.001 📐 Design The Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure are both water filter pitchers, so they have one big thing in common when it comes to design.  But in terms of design quality, we noticed some differences that affected the scores of each system.  Here’s how the pitchers compared in this category. ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyClearly Filtered9.70OutstandingCertifiedEpic Water6.00UnsatisfactoryNot certified The Clearly Filtered pitcher received the best design score of all the pitchers we’ve tested, while the Epic Pure got the worst.  Filter Models The Clearly Filtered is available in just one size and water-holding capacity: the 10-cup Filtered Water Pitcher.  Epic sells the 10-cup Epic Water Pitcher (with an 8.5-cup filtered water capacity). It’s available in two colors: clear and white or clear and navy blue.  The Epic Pure filter can also be used in the Epic Pure Dispenser, which has a 1.7-gallon filtered water capacity.  You might prefer Epic if you want the benefits of a water filter pitcher but with the opportunity to filter bigger batches of water at once. But the Clearly Filtered 10-cup pitcher is the preferred size for most folks looking for a water filter pitcher.  Component Quality  The CF pitcher is predominantly made from Tritan plastic. We noted that the pitcher felt thick, sturdy, solid, and well-made. Of all the pitchers we tested, only the LARQ PureVis pitcher felt like it had the same high-quality design. The Epic Pure pitcher is supposedly also made from Tritan plastic, but the pitcher felt noticeably thinner, flimsier, and poorer quality than Clearly Filtered.  We also identified a design flaw with the pitcher, which further affected its score. When we tried to pick up or move the pitcher when it was full, it caused unfiltered water from the upper reservoir to leak into the lower reservoir, recontaminating the filtered water.  Tritan plastic is widely used in food contact products because it’s BPA-free, BPS-free, and free from other bisphenols (according to third-party testing as reported by Eastman, the manufacturer of Tritan).  However, if you want to stay away from plastics where possible, you will have to look beyond Clearly Filtered and Epic. Neither brand offers a low-plastic alternative (such as glass pitchers).  Filter Materials & Media Both pitchers house their filters in plastic casing, but each uses a unique blend of filter media.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher filter uses activated carbon block filtration media, a woven stainless steel mesh screen, and composite shell. This combination of media enhances the filter’s contaminant reduction abilities, reduces clogging and extends the filter lifespan, and increases water’s contact time with the media.  The filter contains a few other proprietary materials. We think these could be KDF media and perhaps also an ion exchange resin, judging by the contaminants it can reduce. The Epic Pure filter is made from three types of activated carbon media. We think there are additional media in the filter that Epic has chosen not to disclose, given that it reduces some contaminants that carbon media alone can’t usually target.  Materials Safety Certification Clearly Filtered has a materials safety certification as a component of its WQA performance certification, and it’s WQA certified to NSF Standard 372, for lead-free design, so it couldn’t have performed better in this category.  Epic doesn’t have any materials safety certifications.  ⚙️ Setup One of the biggest benefits of water filter pitchers like the Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure systems is that they don’t require a permanent installation.  We’ve compared the pitchers for ease of setup in the table below.  ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeClearly Filtered9.50Less than 10 minutesEpic Water9.50Less than 10 minutes For both filters, our setup process involved:  - Unboxing the systems, placing the filter to one side and washing out the pitchers and reservoirs in warm water and soap.  - Priming or preparing the filter (we’ve shared the different processes for each filter below).  - Installing the filter in the reservoir and filtering our water.   The Clearly Filtered pitcher is one of the few water filter pitchers that still requires a filter priming process. We were a little apprehensive about this, but we needn’t have been - the process was quick and easy with the included priming bag and took less than 10 minutes from start to finish.  The Epic Pure filter was easier to prepare because it didn’t need priming, flushing, or rinsing under the tap. However, after we’d inserted the filter, we then had to filter and discard the first two pitchers of water, which took 24 minutes in total.  🔧 Maintenance We also compared the maintenance requirements for the Clearly Filtered and Epic Water pitchers, which included analyzing the cost of servicing for each system.  Here are the scores that the pitchers obtained in this category.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsClearly Filtered8.75Outstanding$0.55/ galEpic Water9.50Outstanding$0.31/ gal Epic did best here because its maintenance cost is lower.  Servicing Requirements  If we wanted to get the same good performance out of our pitchers in the long run, we needed to replace the filters according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. This was our main servicing requirement for both systems.  The Epic Pure filter has a 150-gallon capacity and lasts as long as 4-6 months with light use, or 3-4 months with normal use. Clearly Filtered recommends replacing its filters after up to 4 months of use (it has a 100-gallon capacity).  Good to Know: The quality of your water will directly impact how long the filters last.  Epic’s pitchers have a filter countdown timer, which counts down 90 days from the day you replace the filter. We used this to guide us on when to change the filter.  Clearly Filtered pitchers don’t have a countdown timer, so we set a reminder on our phone calendars for replacing the filter.  We followed the same instructions for priming/preparing the filters that we used in our setup process. Again, Clearly Filtered was quicker but required a bit more effort, while Epic didn’t need any manual filter priming but took longer to filter and discard two batches of water.  Aside from replacing the filters, we also washed out the pitchers and reservoirs to keep them clean. We did this around once or twice a week, using warm water and soap.  Maintenance Costs The Clearly Filtered pitcher has a higher maintenance cost, so it’s the more expensive system to use in the long run.  The filter cartridges in the CF pitcher have a cost per gallon of $0.55. Epic’s ongoing cost is more affordable, at $0.31 per gallon. It’s more in line with the ongoing costs of the other pitchers we tested, so it’s the better option if you want to keep your long-term spend low. 🏢 Company We don’t only consider the quality of a product when determining its overall value. We also look at the reputability and reliability of the manufacturer, which involves assessing their warranty offerings, and their shipping and returns policies.  Here are the company scores that Clearly Filtered and Epic Water obtained. ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsClearly Filtered9.002 yearsFree shipping to all states30 daysEpic Water8.95LifetimeFree shipping for Water Club membersLifetime Both have great offerings and got two of the best company scores of all the water filter pitchers we reviewed. But Clearly Filtered just scraped a win.  Warranty Length  Clearly Filtered warrants its water filter pitchers for 24 months from the day of purchase.  This is one of the best warranties we’ve seen - but Epic goes one step further with its unbeatable lifetime warranty. Shipping  Clearly Filtered does better here with its free shipping offering to all customers anywhere in the US, with no minimum spend.  Epic’s shipping policy pulled down its overall score. Free shipping is only offered to customers who sign up for Epic’s Clean Water Club subscription program. Everyone else must pay a shipping fee.  Returns Clearly Filtered has a 30-day satisfaction guarantee for its customers, as is standard for most water filter pitcher manufacturers.  Epic has the better offering: a lifetime returns policy. But it still didn’t get the top score here because certain stipulations must be met, and there’s a returns shipping fee that has to be paid by the customer.   ⛔️ System Setbacks & Flaws The Clearly Filtered and Epic Pure systems are two of the best water filter pitchers we’ve tested, but we still identified a few setbacks and flaws that we want to compare here.  Clearly Filtered Setbacks - Cobalt concentrations increased  – The Clearly Filtered pitcher’s contaminant reduction score was impacted by the fact that cobalt was detected in our filtered water. - Reduces healthy minerals – Another unwanted tested outcome was that calcium and magnesium were reduced in our water. - Filter needed priming – The CF pitcher was the only one that needed the filter to be primed.  - Expensive – We spent more money on Clearly Filtered (both upfront and ongoing) than most of the other pitchers we tested.  Epic Pure Setbacks - Not certified – The Epic Pure pitcher doesn’t have any contaminant reduction certifications.  - Thin, flimsy design– Although Epic’s pitcher is also apparently made from Tritan, it felt much poorer quality than Clearly Filtered’s.  - Recontamination potential due to design flaw – Unfiltered water was able to recontaminate the filtered water chamber when we moved the pitcher while completely full.  - Time-consuming filter preparation process – We had to filter two batches of water before we could start using the Pure pitcher.  🆚 Epic Water or Clearly Filtered: Which is Best? There are a few situations where we think Epic is better than Clearly Filtered, and vice versa. Clearly Filtered is Best For: Anyone who values performance and materials safety certifications. People who want to take advantage of free shipping, both for their upfront pitcher purchase and for replacement filters, with no minimum spend. Folks who want a pitcher that’s built to last with a high-quality, sturdy plastic design. Reducing fluoride Choose Epic If: You prefer a water filter that’s more affordable, both upfront and in the long run. You want to reduce contaminants in your water without introducing any impurities.  You value long warranties and returns policies. Read the full article

What Does Brita Filter (and NOT Filter) Out from Water?

Brita is perhaps the most well-known water filter pitcher brand, and we're all aware that Brita improves water quality to some extent. But what exactly do Brita filters remove from tap water? And which contaminants does Brita not remove? We've done the research, and we've broken down the data on Brita's performance data sheets and certification databases in this article. *Note: this article explicitly discusses the contaminants reduced by Brita water filter pitchers: the Brita Elite and the Brita Standard. 🤔 Do Brita Filters Work? Yes, Brita filters work. They have been certified by official testing organizations to reduce specific contaminants. We've also personally tested the Brita Elite filter and can confirm that it effectively reduces some of the contaminants that Brita claims to reduce (we can only comment on the contaminants that were present in our water). But that doesn't mean that Brita filters work to reduce all contaminants. Brita filters are made from activated carbon media and ion exchange resin. These filter media have been widely proven and are expert-recommended to effectively improve water quality. For example: - This Drinking Water and Health evaluation of granular activated carbon for drinking water treatment noted that GAC filter media is recommended by the EPA as the "option of choice" to reduce synthetic organic chemicals in tap water. The report also noted that activated carbon has been used in the US since the 20th century to control tastes and odors in drinking water. - The EPA also recommends ion exchange treatment for removing positively-charged and negatively-charged contaminants, including arsenic, chromium-6, cyanide, nitrate, perchlorate, PFAS, sulfate, and uranium (anion exchange) and barium, radium, and strontium (cation exchange). So, Brita filters work to reduce select contaminants in water and address chlorine taste and odor. But they don't purify water (nor does Brita claim they can). That means a Brita filter might work to reduce the contaminants in your tap water, but it might not. It depends on what your water contains. 🔎 What Are Brita Pitcher Filters Certified to Remove? Does Brita Reduce Alcohol? No, Brita filters aren't certified to reduce alcohol. However, the carbon media in Brita filters can effectively address poor water taste and odor. So, while Brita filters have been found to make vodka taste like water, for example, they don't actually filter out the alcohol itself. Does Brita Reduce Arsenic? No, Brita water filters aren't certified to reduce arsenic. If your tap water contains arsenic, consider using a system that treats water with reverse osmosis, anion exchange, or ultrafiltration. Does Brita Reduce Atrazine? - The Brita Standard Filter is not certified for atrazine reduction. - The Brita Elite Filter is certified by IAPMO to NSF/ANSI 53 for the reduction of select pesticides and herbicides, including atrazine. Does Brita Reduce Bacteria & Other Microbiological Contaminants? No, Brita filters don't filter out bacteria or other microorganisms. Brita pitchers are designed to treat city water only. If you want to filter untreated water, look for water filters that can be used for this purpose. Alternatively, you can use a point-of-entry water disinfection system, like a chlorine injection system or a UV water purifier. Does Brita Reduce Chlorine & Chloramines? The Brita Elite (formerly Longlast+) Filters are certified by the WQA to NSF Standard 42, to reduce chlorine taste and odor. Although the Brita website and PDS for the standard filter indicate it is certified by the WQA, the only listing we can find in the database is outdated and shows certification for materials requirements only. In our own testing, the Brita Elite Filter reduced 100% of chlorine, from 1 PPM down to undetectable levels. Neither Brita filter is certified for chloramine reduction. Does Brita Reduce Chromium 6? No, Brita filters aren't certified to reduce chromium-6. The best methods of reducing chromium-6 include reverse osmosis systems, water distillers, and anion exchange resins (Brita says the Standard Filter uses ion exchange, but we think it uses a cation exchange resin, which doesn't address chromium-6). Does Brita Reduce Fluoride? No, Brita doesn't filter fluoride. If you find concerning levels of fluoride in your drinking water or you prefer not to be exposed to this mineral in your water, I recommend using a water filtration system that does address fluoride. Reverse osmosis systems, bone char carbon filters, activated alumina filters, and water distillers are all effective ways to reduce fluoride. Does Brita Reduce Hard Water & Remove Minerals? No, neither Brita filter is designed to address hard water or reduce minerals. Brita filters water, it doesn't soften it. Many of Brita's competitors actually did reduce hardness minerals in our testing. We think the filters' cation exchange resins reduced these minerals alongside select metal ions. However, the Brita Elite Filter didn't reduce calcium or magnesium at all in our own tests. Does Brita Reduce Iron? No, Brita filters aren't certified to reduce iron. Low concentrations of iron can be addressed alongside hard water minerals using a water softener. If your water contains more than 2-3 PPM of iron, your best solution is a whole-home iron removal system. Does Brita Reduce Lead? The Brita Elite Filter has a WQA certification to NSF/ANSI Standard 53 for lead reduction. The Brita Standard Filter is not certified to reduce lead. Does Brita Reduce Mercury? The Brita Standard and Elite filters have been certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 53 to reduce mercury. (See the Brita Elite's WQA certification here). Does Brita Reduce Microplastics? The Brita Elite Filter has a WQA certification to NSF/ANSI Standard 401 for the reduction of emerging compounds, including microplastics. The Brita Standard Filter does not have a microplastics reduction certification. Does Brita Reduce Nitrates/Nitrites? No, neither filter for Brita pitchers has been certified to reduce nitrate or nitrites. In our own testing, the Brita Elite filter reduced around 5% of nitrate - 3.5 PPM was detected in our unfiltered water, which was reduced to 3.3 PPM in our filtered water. Does Brita Reduce PFAs (Forever Chemicals)? The Brita Elite Filter has been certified by IAMPO to NSF/ANSI Standard 53 for the reduction of PFOA and PFOS (two of the most commonly studied PFAs in drinking water). The Brita Standard Filter is not certified to reduce PFAs. Does Brita Reduce Radioactive Substances? No, Brita filters are not certified to reduce radioactive substances like uranium, radium, radon, or other radionuclides. When we tested the Brita Elite filter, our unfiltered water contained 0.014 PPM of uranium. The Elite filter reduced 26% of this contaminant, down to 0.0103 PPM. The best water filter for reducing these radioactive substances depends on what you need to address. Anion exchange systems address uranium, while cation exchange filters reduce radium, and reverse osmosis systems should address both. Special point-of-entry granular activated carbon filters can trap radon gases. You could also use a POE aeration unit. Does Brita Reduce Sodium (Salt)? No, Brita filters aren't certified to reduce sodium in tap water. Our test water contained 9.63 PPM of sodium, and this actually increased by 10% to 10.6 PPM post-filtration in the Brita Elite Filter. The best way to reduce sodium in your water is with a reverse osmosis filter. You could also use a water distiller. Does Brita Reduce Sulfur Odor (Hydrogen Sulfide)? No, Brita filters aren't certified to filter sulfur odor (a rotten egg smell caused by the presence of hydrogen sulfide). Does Brita Reduce Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)? No, Brita doesn't reduce total dissolved solids. Generally, only reverse osmosis and other water purification processes reduce TDS. TDS is a combination of unwanted substances and impurities that are not considered dangerous to drink, like calcium and magnesium. Water filters like Brita are only designed to reduce the bad stuff. In our testing, the Brita Elite Filter only reduced TDS by around 2%. Does Brita Reduce Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)? The Brita Elite Filter has a WQA certification to NSF/ANSI Standard 401, for the reduction of Estrone, Ibuprofen, and Naproxen. The Brita Standard Filter is not certified for pharmaceuticals reduction. Does Brita Reduce Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs)? No, Brita isn't certified to reduce disinfection byproducts. However, granular activated carbon has been proven effective at reducing disinfection byproducts in numerous studies. ❌ What Does Brita NOT Filter Out? There are several drinking water contaminants that Brita does not filter out. These include: - Arsenic - Fluoride - Microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, protozoa) - Chloramine - Iron - Hardness minerals - Radiological elements There are certain contaminants that only one Brita filter has been certified to reduce, and not the other. The Brita Standard filter can't reduce: - Lead - Benzene - Asbestos - Particulates - Pesticides & herbicides - Pharmaceuticals The Brita Elite filter can't reduce: - Copper - Zinc Many of these contaminants can be reduced with more comprehensive filtration. We've reviewed water filters that have effectively addressed fluoride, uranium, lead, and other contaminants that one or both Brita pitchers can't reduce. Make sure to test your water before you decide on the best water filter for your situation. You might find that your water only contains a few select contaminants that one of the Brita water filters can target. Or, you might discover that your water contains impurities that need to be addressed with dedicated treatment solutions. Read the full article

Waterdrop vs Clearly Filtered: Pitchers Objectively Compared

Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered sell a few different kinds of water filters. Here, we’ve shared our comparison of the Clearly Filtered vs Waterdrop Chubby pitchers. These systems are ideal for folks who want an affordable, portable, no-install water filtration solution - but which do we think is best?  We conducted our own hands-on testing of both systems in our home in Colorado. You can find the data on Clearly Filtered and Waterdrop’s performance across our testing categories, including the contaminants they removed, their filter costs and lifespans, their filtration speeds, and more. Overall Score: 6.57 Waterdrop Chubby Best For: Most affordable option Multiple pitcher sizes & designs Easier to set up & maintain Overall Score: 8.78 Clearly Filtered Best For: Better design quality Third-party tested & certified to reduce more contaminants Longer warranty Discount: Get 10% off at clearlyfiltered.com Waterdrop sells several different pitchers and is more affordable than Clearly Filtered, but in our testing, the Clearly Filtered pitcher did a much better job of reducing the contaminants in our water supply, and we preferred the quality of the pitcher design.  📊 Our Testing Data We conducted comprehensive hands-on tests to assess the Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered pitchers across six key performance categories. Below, we’ve shared our scores for both systems. FactorWaterdropClearly FilteredContaminant Reduction4.248.24Filtration Rate10.0010.00Design8.809.70Setup9.509.50Maintenance9.758.75Company8.659.00 If you want to know the exact data that went into the above scores, we’ve shared it in the next table. FactorWaterdropClearly FilteredWinnerOverall Score6.578.78Clearly FilteredHealth Related Contaminants3.508.30Clearly FilteredAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42NSF/ANSI 42 & 53Clearly FilteredFiltration Rate3.52 GPH2.27 GPHWaterdropComponent QualityFairOutstandingClearly FilteredComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI 42 & 372NSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 372Clearly FilteredSetupOutstandingOutstandingTieServicing RequirementsOutstandingOutstandingTieCosts$0.27/ gallon$0.55/ gallonWaterdropWarranty Length1 year2 yearsClearly FilteredShippingFree shipping to lower 48 statesFree shipping all ordersClearly FilteredReturns30 days30 daysTie 🚰 Contaminant Reduction There were two separate scoring categories that we combined to evaluate the Waterdrop Chubby and Clearly Filtered pitcher for contaminant reduction:  - Which contaminants they could reduce in our water - Whether or not they’re certified for contaminant reduction, and if so, for which contaminants Our Lab Test Results We started by lab-testing our water before and after filtering it through the Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered pitchers.  We were looking to see which pitcher could reduce the most contaminants in our water, and the highest concentrations of these contaminants.  To measure our water quality, we compared the concentrations of the contaminants detected in our water with our testing lab’s HGL (Health Guideline Level).  We’ve shared the data from our test reports, including the contaminants detected in our unfiltered and filtered water samples, so you can compare the pitchers’ ability to improve our water quality.  Clearly Filtered was yards ahead of Waterdrop here, doing a much better job of reducing contaminants in our water supply.  Health-Related Contaminants 8 health-related contaminants were detected in our unfiltered water, including nitrate, barium, fluoride, and uranium.  Ideally, we wanted to reduce all these contaminants. But our priority was reducing uranium and fluoride, because these were detected in concentrations exceeding the Health Guideline Level. When we compared our test results, the Clearly Filtered pitcher was the clear winner. The pitcher reduced 100% fluoride, uranium, and copper. It also reduced 86% barium, 67% strontium, and 53% molybdenum. Nitrate and sulfate reduction was poorer, at 11% and 3% respectively.  We did, however, have one issue with our Clearly Filtered test results. Cobalt, which has possible blood and thyroid effects, appeared to have been introduced by the filter into our water (it had not been detected in our unfiltered water). Our filtered water test detected 0.0054 PPM of this metal, which is unusual, especially given that the filter has been third-party tested to reduce cobalt by >98.31%. We’ll be retesting the pitcher soon so we can get to the bottom of why this occurred.  The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher did a good job of reducing 86% copper, 81% barium, and 81% strontium, but it only reduced 49% uranium, 11% molybdenum, and no fluoride whatsoever. It did slightly better than Clearly Filtered at reducing 25% nitrate, and it did a similarly poor job at reducing sulfate, this time by 2%.  Does that mean that Waterdrop is less capable as a water filter pitcher? For us, yes, but not necessarily for you. The Waterdrop Chubby hasn’t been tested to reduce as many contaminants as the Clearly Filtered pitcher. Looking solely at our own results, they tell us that the Chubby can’t reduce our water’s contaminants as effectively as the CF pitcher. But if our water had contained only the contaminants that the Chubby could reduce, like metal ions and minerals, its performance score probably would have been higher.  This testing outcome demonstrates the importance of getting your water tested first, so you can choose a water filter that addresses the specific contaminants that your water contains.  Aesthetic Contaminants Our test water was a treated groundwater supply, which had been disinfected with chlorine.  We used a chlorine test strip to test for this volatile contaminant at home.  1 PPM of chlorine was detected in our unfiltered water, while no chlorine whatsoever was detected in our filtered water samples, telling us that both pitchers had eliminated this contaminant. We also noticed no chlorine tastes or odors in our filtered water, which was an outcome that we’d expected given that both pitchers use carbon filtration media and the test strips indicated a complete reduction.  Minerals & pH  We generally prefer to retain minerals in our drinking water because they’re necessary to human health and enhance water’s taste.  But we found that many of the water filter pitchers we tested actually reduced these minerals, even if mineral reduction wasn’t an intended outcome.  Clearly Filtered says that its pitcher doesn’t remove healthy minerals, but our test results said otherwise. The pitcher reduced magnesium by 64% and calcium by 32% in our testing. We were surprised that the pH of our water increased from 7.4 to 8. Waterdrop does say that the Chubby pitcher reduces healthy minerals. In our testing, the pitcher reduced calcium by 82% and magnesium by 79%, while potassium increased from 0 PPM to 57.5 PPM. We think the pitcher uses a cation exchange resin, which exchanged calcium and magnesium with potassium.  If you follow a healthy diet, you don’t need to consume these minerals in your water as you’ll get plenty from your foods. Healthline even says that drinking distilled water (with all minerals and impurities removed) shouldn’t make you deficient because you already get most necessary minerals from your diet. Still, you may agree with us that Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered’s mineral reduction is a setback.  Performance Certifications We were pleased to see that Clearly Filtered and Waterdrop both have performance certifications, so we don’t have to rely on their contaminant removal claims alone.  But neither pitcher is certified to reduce very many contaminants, so they didn’t get the top scores in this category.  The Waterdrop Chubby is only certified to reduce chlorine, tastes, and odors, (see its NSF 42 certification here). Waterdrop also claims that the pitcher can reduce five other metals and ions, but the Chubby filter hasn’t been certified to prove this. The Clearly Filtered pitcher is WQA certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 42 and Standard 53, for the reduction of chlorine, PFOS and PFOA. The manufacturer claims that the pitcher can reduce 365 contaminants. We think the filter’s certifications could be more extensive.  🚦Filtration Rate We knew that the Waterdrop Chubby and Clearly Filtered pitchers would have a slower filtration rate because they’re gravity filters, so there’s no water pressure to force the water quickly through the filter media.  We measured the filters’ rate of filtration in gallons per hour (GPH). See how both filters compared in the table below. ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateWaterdrop10.003.52 GPHClearly Filtered10.002.27 GPH The Waterdrop Chubby had a filtration rate of 3.52 GPH, based on its ability to filter 0.414 gallons of water in 7 minutes and 4 seconds. The Clearly Filtered pitcher had a slower filtration rate of 2.27 GPH. It filtered 0.5 gallons of water in 13 minutes and 12 seconds.  This makes sense to us given that the Waterdrop Chubby has a more basic filter design, while Clearly Filtered’s multi-stage filter has a more tortuous path and reduces the flow of water traveling through.  Although both pitchers did well in our testing, it’s worth acknowledging that the filters were still relatively new at the time. Filtration rate typically reduces throughout the filter lifespan in a gravity-fed pitcher. 💲 Upfront Cost In our upfront cost comparison, Waterdrop’s filter pitchers are much cheaper.  The Waterdrop Chubby 10-Cup Pitcher was $27.49 when we got it to review, making it around one-third of the price of the Clearly Filtered pitcher, which was priced at $90.  We think the reason for this initial price difference is pretty clear: with Clearly Filtered, you pay more upfront for the initial filter, which is tested to reduce hundreds more contaminants than the Waterdrop Chubby.  So, in terms of value for money, we think both brands are similar here, even though Clearly Filtered is the more expensive offering.  ProductPriceFilters IncludedWaterdrop Chubby 10-Cup Pitcher$27.491Clearly Filtered pitcher$90.001 📐 Design From a design perspective, the Waterdrop Chubby and Clearly Filtered pitchers are pretty similar. But we still noted some differences between the two that we want to mention here.  Here are the design scores for the pitchers.  ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyWaterdrop8.80FairCertifiedClearly Filtered9.70OutstandingCertified Clearly Filtered got the higher score because we preferred the feel and quality of the plastics used in its design.  Filter Models The Clearly Filtered pitcher filter fits the single water pitcher sold on the manufacturer’s website: the 10-Cup Filtered Water Pitcher. There are no colors and designs to choose from; just a single design in white and clear.  Waterdrop’s sells a few different water filter pitchers that can be used with its gravity filter:  - The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher - The Waterdrop Elfin pitcher - Waterdrop Lucid pitcher The Chubby and the Lucid both hold 10 cups of water, while the Elfin holds just 5 cups. There are a few different color combinations to choose from, including clear, white, and blue. Waterdrop might be your preferred choice if you’re looking for a small water pitcher that’s portable and easy to carry, or if you prefer the wooden handle on the Chubby pitcher. Otherwise, we think Clearly Filtered’s 10-cup pitcher capacity is a good size for most families, and holds a good amount of water without getting too heavy when full.  Component Quality  The Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered pitchers are both made from plastic, but we noticed a difference in design quality between the two.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher is made from BPA- and BPS-free Tritan plastic, which has been approved by the FDA for use in food contact applications and has a sturdier, thicker feel than most other pitchers we’ve used (including the Waterdrop pitcher).  The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher is made from BPA-free polypropylene. It felt thinner and flimsier than the Clearly Filtered pitcher.  There are a few obvious advantages to using these plastics to make water filter pitchers: they’re lightweight, affordable, pliable, heat-resistant, and durable.  But if you don’t like to use plastics in your food and water storage solutions, you’ll need to consider whether the pros of these pitchers outweigh their cons.  Filter Materials Clearly Filtered is more advanced than Waterdrop, and this is evidenced by its filter materials.  The blend of filter media used in the Clearly Filtered pitchers is what Clearly Filtered calls “affinity filtration technology”. Each filter cartridge combines:  - Carbon block media - A woven stainless steel mesh screen - A composite shell - Several unnamed proprietary materials (looking at the contaminants reduced, we think some type of ion exchange resin and/or KDF media) The filter media has many twists and turns, which increases its efficacy in trapping particles.  The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher has a simpler filter design. It uses one primary filter media: activated carbon. The media is laced with silver, which has good antimicrobial properties but doesn’t contribute to contaminant reduction.  Both filters use plastic filter cartridges to contain their media.  Materials Safety Certification Clearly Filtered and Waterdrop both have materials safety certifications, which they obtained as part of their performance certifications.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher is also WQA certified to NSF Standard 372 for lead-free design. ⚙️ Setup Our hands-on testing of both pitchers meant that we could do the setup tasks ourselves.  We noted that Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered were both easy to set up and took less than 15 minutes, but there were some minor differences between the two.  The next table shows our setup times and scores for the systems.  ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeWaterdrop9.50Less than 10 minutesClearly Filtered9.50Less than 10 minutes Waterdrop’s filter needs to be soaked in cold water for 10 minutes before it can be inserted into the pitcher.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher also has a 10-minute filter preparation process, but this time, we had to prime the filter with the included priming bag.  Both filters were easy to prepare, but took longer than many of the other water filter pitchers we’ve tested, which just need a quick rinse under running water.  We also washed the pitchers and reservoirs in warm water and soap before we used them. The Waterdrop pitcher had a filter indicator timer that needed to be set - we just pressed and held the button.   We recommend both pitchers to folks who are looking for a quick and easy filter setup process.  🔧 Maintenance Maintenance for the Waterdrop Chubby filter and the Claarly Filtered pitcher was also simple and minimal.  We awarded the following maintenance scores to the two filters. ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsWaterdrop9.75Outstanding$0.27/ gallonClearly Filtered8.75Outstanding$0.55/ gallon Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered were equal in this category because they were both easy to maintain and had low servicing costs.  Servicing Requirements  For both pitchers, we had to replace the filters once they reached the end of their estimated lifespan or once the filtration rate decreased significantly. We also washed out the pitchers and reservoirs around once or twice a week to keep them clean. We found the Waterdrop Chubby’s filter change indicator light helpful in reminding us to replace the filters, although it only provides guidance based on a timer - it doesn't account for differences in water quality.  The Clearly Filtered pitcher doesn't have this feature, so we used our own initiative and replaced the filter when the filtration speed had reduced (we also set a calendar reminder on our phones). Maintenance Costs The Waterdrop Chubby is cheaper to maintain than the Clearly Filtered pitcher, so it's the best choice if you want to keep your ongoing spend low.   We calculated the Chubby pitcher’s ongoing filter value at $0.27 per gallon. Clearly Filtered’s cost per gallon is around double the Chubby's: $0.55. It’s around $0.20-$0.30/gallon more expensive than many of the other pitchers we tested.  Why do we think Clearly Filtered has the highest long-term spend? Its filters are more advanced and reduce more contaminants than Waterdrop, so you pay for the better performance. 🏢 Company Product performance aside, we wanted to see how Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered compared in terms of their offerings as companies, including their warranties, shipping, and returns policies.  ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsWaterdrop8.651 yearFree shipping to lower 48 states30 daysClearly Filtered9.002 yearsFree shipping all orders30 days We were impressed with both companies here, but Clearly Filtered has the best offerings overall.  Warranty Length  Waterdrop warrants its pitchers for 1 year, which is pretty great for a water filter pitcher company.  Clearly Filtered's 2-year warranty is even better - it's actually the longest warranty we've come across for any of the water filter pitchers we reviewed.  Shipping  Both Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered offer free economy shipping for all orders, with no minimum spend. Clearly Filtered offers free shipping to all states, making it slightly better than Waterdrop here.  Returns Waterdrop and Clearly Filtered are equal in their returns policy offerings. Both provide a 30-day returns period from the date of purchase.   ⛔️ Pitcher Setbacks & Flaws It's good to know the full story before you invest in any water filter pitcher, so here, we've compared the setbacks of the Waterdrop Chubby and Clearly Filtered pitchers. Waterdrop Setbacks - Only certified to reduce 1 contaminant – The Chubby pitcher only has a certification for chlorine reduction.  - Reduces healthy minerals  – There was a significant reduction in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium minerals in our water.  - Poorer contaminant reduction performance  – The filter was less capable of reducing contaminants like fluoride, uranium, and nitrate in our water. - Poorer quality pitcher materials – We found that the plastics used in the Chubby pitcher felt thinner and flimsier than those used in the CF pitcher.  Clearly Filtered Setbacks - Only certified to reduce some contaminants – We'd like to see Clearly Filtered get certified to reduce more contaminants given that it's third-party tested to reduce more than 365.  - Expensive – The CF filter’s superior performance comes at a higher upfront and ongoing cost.  - Reduced minerals – The Clearly Filtered pitcher also reduced healthy minerals in our water, although not as much as Waterdrop. 🆚 Waterdrop or Clearly Filtered: Which Should You Choose? We think the Waterdrop Chubby and Clearly Filtered pitchers are both good choices, but that doesn’t mean they’re right for everyone. Here, we've outlined the situations where one filter may be better for you than the other. Go For Waterdrop If: You're looking for the most affordable water filter pitcher. You want to target a few specific contaminants, including some metal ions and chlorine, rather than reducing as many contaminants as possible. You want to choose between a few different pitcher sizes and models. Choose Clearly Filtered If: Your priority is to reduce as many contaminants as possible in your water, or you want to address contaminants like fluoride and uranium with a capable filter pitcher. You prefer a pitcher made from thicker, higher-quality plastic. You want a filter that has been tested and certified to reduce more contaminants. Read the full article

Epic Pure Water Filter Review (Objective, Data-Driven Test)

Epic sells a number of different water filters, and arguably its best-known offering is the Epic Pure Water Filter Pitcher.  We got our hands on the Epic Pure pitcher, and in this review, we’ve shared everything you should know about its performance based on our own hands-on data-driven testing.  Overall Score: 8.90 How We Test & Score 9.00 Contaminant Reduction 6.00 Design 9.50 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 9.50 Setup 8.95 Company What We Like Reduced all health-related contaminants to below the testing lab’s HGLs Fast filtration rate Easy setup & maintenance Affordable upfront & ongoing costs What We Don’t Like Not performance certified  Thin, more flimsy feeling plastic design Design flaw with top reservoir No materials safety certification Only one pitcher size available Price$70.00Contaminants Reduced200+CertificationsNot certifiedProcessSolid Activated Carbon BlockFilter Capacity150 gallonsAnnual Cost~$150WarrantyLifetime Discount: Get 20% off at epicwaterfilters.com - Click Here for Code 📊 Scoring Data We tested the Epic Pure using the same process that we use for all water filters. This involved conducting our own data-driven tests and subjective analysis to evaluate the pitcher’s performance across 6 different testing categories. We’ve shared a breakdown of how the Epic Pure performed across the categories in the table below.  CriteriaResultsHealth Related Contaminants9.30Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationNot certified for any reduction claimsFiltration Rate2.23 GPHComponent QualityUnsatisfactoryComponent CertificationNot certifiedSetupOutstandingServicing RequirementsOutstandingCosts$0.31/gallonWarranty LengthLifetimeShippingFree shipping for the Clean Water Club onlyReturnsLifetime 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 9.00 We tested the Epic Pure pitcher with a treated groundwater supply. Our unfiltered water test detected a handful of contaminants, and we wanted to evaluate the pitcher’s ability to reduce them. Since our own testing was limited to the contaminants present in our water, we also looked for official performance certifications, which water filter manufacturers can choose to apply for to prove that their products can effectively reduce specific contaminants from water.  Our Performance Testing Score: 9.33 After testing our unfiltered water, we tested the water that had been filtered through the Epic Pure system. We used Tap Score tests by SimpleLab, which gave us access to two water quality reports: one for each pre-filtration and post-filtration. Tap Score has its own benchmarks for contaminants in water, known as HGLs (Health Guideline Levels), which are stricter than the federal MCL and prioritize human health. We used these guidelines when analyzing our results.  Health-Related Contaminants Score: 9.30 Our unfiltered water contained 8 contaminants which, with long-term exposure to high concentrations, could cause health effects including blood effects, developmental issues, and kidney damage. 6 of these contaminants were detected at concentrations below the HGL, apart from uranium and fluoride, which exceeded their HGLs of 0 PPM and 0.8 PPM respectively. 0.014 PPM of uranium and 1.1 PPM of fluoride were detected.  The Epic Pure was one of the best-performing pitchers we tested, reducing all health-related contaminants in our water to below the HGLs. According to our test results, the filter reduced 100% uranium, copper, and phosphorus, as well as 92% sulfate, 57% molybdenum, 41% barium, 27% fluoride, and 20% nitrate.  This was without reducing healthy minerals - in fact, calcium, magnesium, and sodium actually increased slightly post-filtration. We were pleased with this outcome given that many of the other water filter pitchers we tested actually reduced the beneficial minerals in our water.  Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 The only aesthetic contaminant detected in our water was chlorine. According to our test, 1 PPM of chlorine was present in our unfiltered water. This was reduced down to 0 PPM post-filtration in the Epic Pure pitcher.  Chlorine affects water’s taste and smell, so we taste-tested our filtered water to see if we noticed a difference. Our unfiltered water didn’t contain a whole lot of chlorine in the first place, but we couldn’t detect any chlorine tastes or odors in our filtered water, telling us that the filter had done its job.  Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 We were hoping that Epic would follow in the footsteps of many other water filter pitcher manufacturers and obtain a performance certification for its filter. Unfortunately, the Epic Pure currently isn’t certified for contaminant reduction - we could only find third-party performance testing data on Epic’s website.  Because it’s lacking a certification, the pitcher got a lower score from us here.  But we still wanted to see how the manufacturer’s performance claims compared to our own testing data, so we compared the two, focusing only on the contaminants that our water contained.  According to Epic’s third-party testing data, the Pure pitcher can reduce 98.4% chlorine, 99.73% uranium, 95.8% copper, and 79.6% sulfate. It performed equally or better in our own testing for reducing these contaminants.  Epic’s testing results also show that the pitcher reduced 92.7% barium and 88.2% nitrate, but it didn’t quite do as well in our own testing - it only reduced 41% barium and 20% nitrate.  As for phosphorous and molybdenum, it was a bonus that the filter reduced these contaminants in our water at all because Epic doesn’t claim that any of them can be reduced.  Our only disappointing result was that the filter reduced just 27% fluoride, when Epic claims the filter can reduce 97.88% of this impurity.  We hope that Epic will invest in an official performance certification soon, especially since so many of its competitors - Clearly Filtered, ZeroWater, Brita, etc. - are now certified to reduce at least one contaminant. 🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 The Epic Pure filtered 0.453 gallons of water in 12 minutes and 13 seconds, which gave it a filtration rate of 2.23 GPH.  This was almost dead-on average when we compared it to the other 8 water filter pitchers we tested (the average filtration rate was 2.30 GPH).  We were pleased with the pitcher’s filtration speed, although we expect that it’ll slow down gradually as the filter becomes more saturated with contaminants over time.  📐 Design Score: 6.00 Epic sells just one pitcher size, with a 10-cup capacity. There are two lid/handle colors to choose from: white and navy blue.  The Epic Pure pitcher got one of the lowest overall design scores we’ve awarded for a water filter pitcher. It’s basic and practical, but it didn’t impress us on the design quality front, it doesn’t have a materials safety certification, and we encountered a serious design flaw. Component Quality Score: 6.00 The primary material that’s used in the Epic Pure pitcher’s design is Tritan plastic.  We had an overall better experience with the other water filter pitchers using Tritan plastic, including the Clearly Filtered pitcher and LARQ PureVis pitcher. But Epic’s plastics felt much thinner and flimsier than the other pitchers.  Epic’s component quality score was also reduced due to a design flaw we identified: untreated water from the upper reservoir was able to spill and leak to the lower reservoir when we tried to move or pick up the pitcher while it was completely full.  The water could spill from the top reservoir down both at the front by the spout and the back by the handle. Obviously, this is not good and defies the whole point of filtering your water in the first place.  Certification Score: 6.00 The Epic Pure pitcher hasn’t been certified for materials safety, so it got the lowest score in this category. Filter Materials We couldn’t find extensive information on exactly how the Epic Pure filters are made, and which materials are used.  All we know is that the filters are solid activated carbon block filter media, and that they blend three types of activated carbon.  Activated carbon uses the adsorption process, which is highly effective at reducing contaminants like chlorine, tastes, odors, and several VOCs.  Given that the Pure filter can also reduce many metal ions, as well as uranium and some fluoride, we think it likely contains other media not disclosed by Epic. Good to Know: The Epic Pure and Epic Nano filters are interchangeable (remember, the Nano filter is intended for untreated surface or groundwater). You can use either filter in the same pitcher, as they’re both the same size and shape. So, you could switch from the Epic Pure to the Epic Nano filter in your pitcher while camping or traveling. ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.50 Setup for the Epic Pure was easy because the filter didn’t need priming, flushing, or rinsing under the tap.  We just washed and assembled the pitcher and reservoir, then filtered and discarded the first two pitchers of water. This was time-consuming - most other water filter pitchers have faster filter priming/flushing processes - but easy enough.  Setup took about 5 minutes total, not including the time it took to filter and discard the initial batches of water.  Ease of Use As a water filter pitcher, the Epic Pure is one of the easiest filters to use.  The pitcher is light enough to hold comfortably, even when full (it holds 10 cups of water), and the flip-top lid made it easy to fill the jug - we could just hold it with one hand under a faucet and let the water run straight in, without the hassle of a lid to pop on and off.  The filter change reminder was another handy feature that made our user experience easy. If you’ve never used a water filter before and you’re concerned you won’t know when the filter needs replacing, you’ll appreciate being able to use the countdown timer as guidance.  🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.50 We calculated how much the Epic Pure pitcher would cost for long-term maintenance, and combined this with our own subjective opinion about the system’s servicing requirements.  Servicing Requirements 9.50 There’s only one filter to replace in the Epic Pure pitcher, so our servicing requirements were manageable.  Each filter has a 150-gallon capacity, which equates to around 3-4 months on average, depending on your water quality and usage.  According to Epic, If you fill the pitcher up once or twice per day (“light use”), the filter should last for four to six months, and if you fill the pitcher more than three times per day (“heavy use”), the filter will last for two to three months. In our testing, we needed to replace the filter every 3 months, which is slightly better than the average (2 months) for a water filter pitcher. The timer on the pitcher lid is set to 90 days, so if you’re worried you might forget to replace your filter, you’ll have guidance from the pitcher itself. We had to filter and discard the first two batches of water after replacing the filter, just like we did with the first filter. We also reset the filter change reminder at this time, so it would accurately calculate the lifespan of the new filter.  Aside from replacing the filter, we washed out the pitcher and reservoir 1-2 times a week with a mild dish soap. Epic’s pitchers are dishwasher safe, but the lid should be wiped down separately and the filter should be removed first.  Replacement filters are available on the Epic Water Filters website, and you can sign up for the manufacturer’s subscription delivery service, Clean Water Club, to save 20% on replacement filter costs. Costs Score: 9.50 We calculated the ongoing cost for the Epic Pure pitcher as $0.31/ gallon, which is around the typical price range that we see for water filter pitchers.  While some of the pitchers we reviewed had a cost per gallon as little as $0.17, some cost upwards of $0.51/ gallon, so Epic sits nicely in the middle.   The pitcher’s upfront cost is right in the middle, too - it cost $69 when we got it to review. Some of the pitchers we tested cost as little as $25, but others cost $100+, so again, Epic is neither the cheapest nor the most expensive.  Given that the filters have been tested to reduce hundreds of contaminants but aren’t certified, we think the value for money is pretty spot on. 🏢 Company Score: 8.95 Epic got one of the highest company scores of all the water filter pitchers we reviewed. The manufacturer’s warranty and returns policies in particular are better than many of its competitors.  Warranty  Score: 10.00 Epic’s lifetime warranty is incredibly generous given that water filter pitchers are typically only warranted for 60-90 days.  Only a few other manufacturers come close to Epic here: Clearly Filtered, which offers a 2-year warranty, and Brita, Waterdrop, and LARQ, which provide 1-year warranties.  View Epic’s warranty information here.  Shipping  Score: 8.00 Unfortunately, Epic’s shipping policy isn’t as impressive. Only customers who sign up for the Clean Water Club (Epic’s filter replacement subscription) are entitled to free shipping on their orders - all other orders incur a shipping fee.  This information wasn’t readily available on the Epic Water Filters website, and we had to reach out to customer support with our question. Returns Score: 8.50 Most water filter manufacturers offer a 30-day returns policy. Epic goes one step further with its lifetime returns policy, which allows customers to return their product for a refund if they’re not 100% satisfied.  However, stipulations must be met, and the customer must pay the return shipping fee.  Found this review helpful? Comment below or share this article! Read the full article

Zerowater vs Waterdrop: A Data-Driven Analysis & Comparison

We tested the ZeroWater Ready-Pour and the Waterdrop Chubby pitchers ourselves, and we identified a few key differences between the two. Here, we’ve shared our performance testing data for ZeroWater vs Waterdrop pitchers, including the contaminants they reduced in our water, filtration speed, design quality, and more.  Overall Score: 8.62 ZeroWater Best For: Reduces TDS Certified to reduce more contaminants Reduces more contaminants altogether Overall Score: 6.57 Waterdrop Best For: Most affordable option Longer filter lifespan Cheaper to maintain In our testing, the ZeroWater pitcher did a better job of reducing the contaminants in our water, but the Waterdrop Chubby had a longer filter lifespan and was the cheapest option. We were pleased to see that both pitchers have performance certifications, but ZeroWater’s short filter lifespan didn’t impress us, and the Waterdrop Chubby is only certified to reduce 1 containant.  📊 Our Testing Data We ranked the Waterdrop and ZeroWater filters using our 6 key water filter testing criteria. Here are the scores we awarded the filters for each of the criteria: FactorZeroWaterWaterdropContaminant Reduction8.344.24Filtration Rate10.0010.00Design8.808.80Setup9.509.50Maintenance8.259.75Company7.508.65 We awarded each testing score based on a combined, weighted average of several subcategory scores. Here’s all the different data we obtained for ZeroWater and Waterdrop. FactorZeroWaterWaterdropWinnerOverall Score8.626.57ZeroWaterHealth Related Contaminants8.303.50ZeroWaterAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90WaterdropPerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42 & 53NSF/ANSI 42TieFiltration Rate2.62 GPH3.52 GPHWaterdropComponent QualityFairFairTieComponent CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 372NSF/ANSI 42TieSetupOutstandingOutstandingTieServicing RequirementsOutstandingOutstandingTieCosts$0.70/ gal$0.27/ galWaterdropWarranty Length90 days (vessels), 30 days (filters)1 yearWaterdropShipping$60 order thresholdfreeWaterdropReturnsNone30 daysWaterdrop 🚰 Contaminant Reduction We used the Tap Score city water test, provided by SimpleLab, to test our water quality before and after filtering it through the ZeroWater pitcher and the Waterdrop Chubby.  We combined our test results with data we obtained from official certification organizations for water filters (the NSF, IAMPO, and WQA). See our overall score for contaminant reduction for both pitchers in the table below. Our Lab Test Results Here, we’ve shared our lab test results for ZeroWater and Waterdrop.  The water supply we tested is groundwater that has been treated to make it safe to drink.   To determine the pitchers’ contaminant removal abilities, we assessed their reduction efficacy across various contaminant categories.  The ZeroWater pitcher did significantly better here - it reduced more contaminants from our water and is also certified to reduce more contaminants than the Waterdrop Chubby. Health-Related Contaminants Our water test detected 8 contaminants with health effects in our unfiltered water, and we wanted to see how effectively Waterdrop and ZeroWater could reduce these. Uranium and fluoride were both detected at levels above the testing laboratory’s Health Guideline: 0.014 PPM of uranium (the HGL is 0 PPM) and 1.1 PPM of fluoride (the HGL is 0.8 PPM).  The other 6 contaminants were detected in concentrations that didn’t exceed the laboratory’s Health Guidelines, but due to their possible health effects, we still wanted them gone from our water.  The ZeroWater pitcher outshone the Waterdrop Chubby here, reducing the majority of health-harmful contaminants effectively. Here are its key contaminant reduction stats:  - 100% fluoride, uranium, strontium, nitrate, molybdenum, sulfate, and barium reduction - 97% copper reduction Our water’s health score still wasn’t perfect post-filtration, though. The score was pulled down slightly by the presence of 3.4 PPB of chloroform (a disinfection byproduct), which hadn’t been detected in our unfiltered water. Chloroform is highly volatile, so we think it dissipated from our unfiltered water before we filled the sample vials (which we did after filling the filtered water sample vials for the 8 water filter pitchers that we tested). Because it was detected in our filtered water, we knew that the ZeroWater pitcher hadn’t effectively filtered chloroform. The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher did a poorer job at addressing health-related contaminants overall, reducing:  - 86% copper  - 81% barium and strontium - 49% uranium - 25% nitrate  - 11% molybdenum - 2% sulfate - 0% fluoride  Does that mean that Waterdrop has a poorer performance? In this instance, yes - but only with our water supply. It’s possible that both filters would perform equally, or Waterdrop might even outshine ZeroWater, if we filtered a water sample that contained contaminants the Chubby pitcher was designed to address, like lead, metal ions, and mercury. That’s why we always advise our readers to test their water. It’s worth knowing exactly which contaminants you want to target so you can buy a water filter system that best suits your situation. Aesthetic Contaminants Our treated groundwater supply contained around 1 PPM of chlorine. We were pleased to see that the ZeroWater filter pitcher and the Waterdrop Chubby pitcher both reduced 100% of this chlorine, down to undetectable levels.  Both filters are activated carbon-based, so they’re intentionally designed to effectively reduce chlorine and any chemical tastes/odors.  Minerals, TDS & pH  We expected that the ZeroWater pitcher would alter the minerals, TDS, and pH concentrations in our water because ZeroWater promises to reduce TDS down to 0 in drinking water.  We have issues with this marketing because we think ZeroWater is insinuating that TDS on a whole is bad, and that water filters are only worth the money if they eliminate all dissolved solids.  This isn’t always the case. Our test detected calcium, magnesium, and sodium, and 137 PPM of TDS in our unfiltered water.  The ZeroWater pitcher reduced 100% of magnesium and sodium, and calcium by 99%. It also reduced TDS down to 8 PPM, which was slightly higher than ZeroWater’s 0 PPM claim (although our TDS meter gave a reading of 0, suggesting a lack of precision compared to the instruments at the lab).  Our water’s pH also dropped slightly from 7.4 to 7.0, so it was still neutral post-filtration.  The Waterdrop Chubby filter isn’t designed to reduce TDS, but Waterdrop does claim that it can reduce calcium and magnesium minerals.  Again, we can’t see the benefit of reducing these minerals given that they’re essential to human health and give water a pleasant alkaline taste.  The Chubby reduced calcium by 82% and magnesium by 79%. Our water’s potassium levels actually increased from 0 PPM to 57.5 PPM. We think the pitcher filter uses a cation exchange resin, which exchanged calcium and magnesium (along with certain metal ions) with potassium ions.  Waterdrop’s pitcher only reduced our water’s pH to 7.2 - keeping it slightly more alkaline than our ZeroWater filtered water.  We weren’t impressed with either of the filters in this category since we don’t see the benefit of reducing minerals in our water.  Performance Certifications The ZeroWater pitcher and the Waterdrop Chubby are both performance-certified, which is great. But neither of the filters got top marks from us here because they’re each only certified to reduce a few select contaminants.  The Waterdrop Chubby was the least impressive in this category, with an NSF 42 certification for the reduction of chlorine, tastes, and odors. That means it’s only certified to reduce 1 out of the 6 contaminants listed on the Chubby product page.  Waterdrop doesn’t even share a conclusive list of contaminants the filter has been tested to reduce. We think this is pretty vital information that should be more clearly displayed on Weterdrop’s website, so customers know exactly which contaminants the filter has been tested to reduce.  The ZeroWater pitcher did better here because it’s NSF certified to Standard 42 and Standard 53 for reducing chlorine taste and odor, chromium 6, mercury, lead, PFOA, and PFOS. We were pleased to see more certifications from ZeroWater, as well as a separate performance datasheet for the full list of 43 contaminants that the filter has been tested, but not all certified, to reduce. Still, we’d prefer for the filter to be certified for the reduction of more contaminants. 🚦Filtration Rate The ZeroWater and Waterdrop pitchers both use gravity-fed filters, and we measured their filtration rate in gallons per hour (GPH). Here’s how the filters compare in terms of filtration rate.  ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateZeroWater10.002.62 GPHWaterdrop10.003.52 GPH Both filters impressed us, with fast filtration rates even given the restraints of gravity filtration (which is slower because there’s no water pressure to speed the process along). The ZeroWater filtered 0.391 gallons of water in 8 minutes and 56 seconds, and we measured its filtration rate at 2.62 GPH. We filtered 0.414 gallons of water through the Chubby pitcher in 7 minutes and 4 seconds, so it had an average filtration rate of 3.52 GPH.  That made the Chubby pitcher the fastest of the two - and, in fact, this pitcher is one of the fastest out of all the water filter pitchers we’ve tested. The filters were fairly new when we tested them, and it’s likely that their filtration rates will reduce gradually over time.  💲 Upfront Cost ZeroWater and Waterdrop both offer budget-friendly water filter pitchers, but Waterdrop just won in this category.  We reviewed ZeroWater’s 12-Cup Ready-Pour Pitcher, and it cost $39.99 when we got it to test.  The Waterdrop Chubby 10-Cup Pitcher was around $12 cheaper at $27.49 when we got it to review.  ZeroWater’s pitcher is bigger, so the value for money is pretty similar, but Waterdrop is the best option if you have a small budget and prefer to spend as little money as possible upfront.  Here’s our price comparison of ZeroWater and Waterdrop.  ProductPriceZeroWater 12-Cup Ready-Pour Pitcher$39.99Waterdrop Chubby 10-Cup Pitcher$27.49 More Comparisons: - ZeroWater and Berkey: Which is Better? - ZeroWater vs Brita: An Objective, Hands-On Analysis - Clearly Filtered vs ZeroWater: Which is Better? - Waterdrop vs Berkey: Objective & Data-Driven Comparison 📐 Design We assessed the ZeroWater and Waterdrop pitchers during our testing and made notes on their design feel, durability, and quality. We also compared the systems’ materials safety certifications (or lack thereof) to award them both an overall design score.  Here’s how the filters compared in this testing category: ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyZeroWater8.80FairCertifiedWaterdrop8.80FairCertified Both were equal here - they’re both certified for materials safety and have similar plastic designs.  Filter Models ZeroWater currently sells a range of pitchers and dispensers that can be used with the 5-Stage Filter: - 7-Cup Ready Pour Pitcher - EcoFilter 10-Cup Pitcher - 10-Cup Pitcher - 10-Cup Ready Pour Pitcher - 10 Cup Round Ready Pour Pitcher - 12-Cup Ready Pour Pitcher - 12-Cup Ready Read Dispenser - 20-Cup Ready Pour Dispenser - 22-Cup Ready Read Dispenser - 30-Cup Dispenser - 32-Cup Ready Read Dispenser - 40-Cup Glass Dispenser - 52- Cup Ready Read Dispenser Most ZeroWater pitchers are available in just one color combination: blue, white, and clear. They’re all made from plastic, with the exception of the Glass Ready Pour Dispenser. Waterdrop’s water filter pitcher selection is smaller:  - The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher - The Waterdrop Elfin pitcher - Waterdrop Lucid pitcher The Chubby and the Lucid are the larger pitcher options with 10-cup capacities. The Elfin holds just 5 cups of water. Waterdrop doesn’t currently sell 12-cup pitchers like ZeroWater. Different Waterdrop pitchers are available in different color combinations - our Chubby pitcher was available to buy in white, skyblue, and clear. In terms of product diversity, ZeroWater is the winner here. But Waterdrop’s Chubby pitcher with a wooden handle might appeal more to you from a design perspective.  Component Quality  The ZeroWater and Waterdrop pitchers are both made from similar plastics, so we gave them the same score for component quality.  The ZeroWater pitcher is made of BPA-free polypropylene and ABS (a terpolymer). The Waterdrop Chubby is made from “BPA-free advanced plastics”. The Waterdrop website doesn’t provide any specific information on exactly what plastics are used, but we contacted the customer service team, who told us that the pitcher is made from polypropylene, like ZeroWater. We noted that both pitchers felt lightweight yet sturdy, and their plastic designs seemed unlikely to shatter. That said, we know that some people want to cut down on their plastics consumption, and we’ve read concerning information about microplastics leaching from different plastic materials. If you want to avoid using plastics where possible, neither of these pitchers is the best choice. You might want to upgrade to ZeroWater’s glass dispenser, although it’s more expensive and isn’t as portable due to being larger and heavier.  Filter Materials The Waterdrop and ZeroWater filters are made from similar materials, but ZeroWater’s appears to be more advanced.  ZeroWater’s 5-Stage Filter has an activated carbon media, a combination of cation and anion exchange resins, and three layers of physical filtration. Waterdrop’s water pitcher filter is silver-laced activated carbon fiber media. We think the filter also uses a cation exchange resin, given that it reduced minerals in our water. Both filters use an exterior plastic cartridge that houses the media inside. Materials Safety Certification Both ZeroWater and Waterdrop have obtained materials safety certifications as components of their performance certifications, so they got the same top scores from us here.  Waterdrop claims the Chubby also has an NSF 372 certification for lead-free design, but we couldn’t confirm this on any of the certification databases.  We appreciated knowing that the pitchers had both been tested and deemed safe for their purpose by a trusted third-party organization. ⚙️ Setup We expected that we’d have a similar setup experience with ZeroWater and Waterdrop because they’re both no-install pitchers that use a single filter.  However, there were a few minor differences between setup for the filters that we’ve commented on here.  The table below shows our setup scores and times for the ZeroWater filter pitcher and the Waterdrop Chubby.   ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeZeroWater9.50Less than 10 minutesWaterdrop9.50Less than 10 minutes Both filters got the same setup scores because, despite their slight differences in setup, they were both equally quick and easy to assemble.  The ZeroWater pitcher was our favorite in terms of ease of setup. We didn’t have to prime, soak, or flush the filter - we just inserted it straight into the pitcher and started using it immediately.  Waterdrop’s filter is only slightly more time-consuming to set up. We had to activate it by soaking it in cold water for 10 minutes, which added a bit of time to the process.  Aside from filter setup, we also: - Washed them in warm water and soap, then dried them thoroughly  - Did some basic assembly (the reservoir slots into the pitcher) - Set our filter change indicator light - Filled the reservoir with cold water We found setup for both filters easy and would recommend both of them to folks who want to avoid DIY, filter priming, and difficult instructions. 🔧 Maintenance Again, we found maintenance for ZeroWater and Waterdrop very similar.  The Waterdrop Chubby filter’s lifespan (up to 3 months based on its 200-gallon capacity) is significantly better than ZeroWater’s (around 1 month on average, based on its 40-gallon capacity). Here are the maintenance scores we awarded for the two filters.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsZeroWater8.25Outstanding$0.70/ galWaterdrop9.75Outstanding$0.27/ gal Waterdrop did better in this category. While we found both pitchers easy to maintain, the ZeroWater pitcher’s high ongoing filter cost pulled its score down.  Servicing Requirements  The ZeroWater filter pitcher and the Waterdrop Chubby have two basic maintenance requirements: - Washing out the pitcher and reservoir - Replacing the filters We washed the pitchers and reservoirs around once or twice a week, using warm, soapy water. This was to prevent the accumulation of scale and other deposits inside the jugs.   We replaced the filters according to their own schedules (ZeroWater’s needed replacing more often).  The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher has a filter change indicator light that changes color to let you know when to replace the filter. This doesn’t account for water quality, so it’s not as accurate as ZeroWater’s method of determining when to replace the filter: using the included TDS meter to take a TDS reading of your water. When the meter reads 006, ZeroWater says it’s time for a new filter.  Replacing the filters was easy - we just followed the same steps as outlined in the filter setup instructions, with no need to prime them first. Maintenance Costs We estimated that ZeroWater’s ongoing maintenance costs are almost three times the cost of Waterdrop’s, so the Waterdrop Chubby is definitely the better option if you want to spend as little as possible on filter replacements in the long term.  ZeroWater filters have a capacity of 8-40 gallons depending on the TDS reading of the unfiltered water. Even its maximum capacity is low, and we’ve heard of customers claiming their filter only lasts 1-2 few weeks before needing to be replaced.  We calculated the ZeroWater’s filter’s ongoing cost at $0.70/ gallon, assuming that our water’s initial TDS falls into the “typical” range on this chart: The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher is cheaper to maintain, both because its filters last longer and because replacement filters are more affordable. We calculated the ongoing filter value at $0.27 per gallon. While neither pitcher is super expensive to own, replacing filters in the ZeroWater pitcher is costlier than most of the other water filter pitchers we tested.  🏢 Company We also wanted to compare the reliability of ZeroWater and Waterdrop as manufacturers, including their shipping policies, how they respond in the case of a defective product, and whether or not they offer refunds for returns within a specific post-purchase period.  Here’s how ZeroWater and Waterdrop compared as companies. ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsZeroWater7.5090 days (vessels), 30 days (filters)Free shipping on orders over $60 to customers in continental U.SNoneWaterdrop8.651 yearFree shipping on economy orders 30 days Waterdrop got the higher overall score here because it has a better warranty, and better shipping and returns policies.  Warranty Length  Waterdrop’s 1-year warranty is as good as it gets for water filter pitchers.  ZeroWater has a shorter warranty: 90 days for its pitchers and reservoirs, and 30 days for its filter cartridges (only if they’re defective; not if they just need replacing within this period).  Shipping  Waterdrop offers free economy shipping for all orders, while ZeroWater only offers free shipping to customers in continental U.S. who spend a minimum of $60.  Returns Again, Waterdrop’s return offering is best: it provides a 30-day returns policy, while ZeroWater doesn’t have a returns policy at all.  ⛔️ Pitcher Setbacks & Flaws Like all water filters we’ve tested, ZeroWater and Waterdrop both have room for improvement. Read the full article

Waterdrop Chubby Review

The Waterdrop Chubby is a 10-cup water filter pitcher that has been tested to reduce dozens of common drinking water contaminants and has an NSF certification for chlorine reduction. We tested the pitcher in our own home to find out which contaminants it could remove from our water, and assessed its speed of filtration, design quality, and more. Overall Score: 6.57 How We Test & Score 4.24 Contaminant Reduction 8.80 Design 9.75 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 9.50 Setup 8.65 Company What We Like One of the most affordable water filter pitchers we tested Performance tested for chlorine reduction Also has a materials safety certification Doesn’t require a plumbing or electricity connection Easy to set up and maintain What We Don’t Like Didn’t effectively reduce many contaminants in our treated groundwater supply Reduced healthy minerals in our testing Only one pitcher size/water holding capacity available Plastic design Price$27.49Contaminants Reduced10+CertificationsNSF 42ProcessActivated CarbonFilter Capacity200 gallonsAnnual Cost$30 – $60Warranty1 year 📊 Scoring Data To obtain an overall score for the water filters we test, we use a weighted average of 6 different performance rankings. The table below highlights the scores we awarded to the Waterdrop Chubby pitcher in each testing category.  CriteriaResultsOverall Score6.57Health Related Contaminants3.50Aesthetic Related Contaminants9.90Performance CertificationCertified for 17% of reduction claimsFiltration Rate3.52 GPHComponent QualityFairComponent CertificationCertifiedSetupOutstandingServicing RequirementsOutstandingCosts$0.27/ galWarranty Length1 yearShippingFree shipping to lower 48 statesReturns30 days 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 4.24 We knew that our water contained a handful of harmful trace contaminants that we wanted to remove with a water filter. Contaminant reduction is the most important performance feature of any water filter, so testing the Waterdrop Chubby within this ranking factor was our top priority.  We tested our own water supply before and after filtering it through the Chubby pitcher and combined our results with official certification data to award the pitcher’s overall contaminant reduction score.  Our Performance Testing Score: 3.82 We tested the Waterdrop Chubby pitcher’s ability to reduce the contaminants found in our treated groundwater supply. We used Tap Score tests by SimpleLab to take unfiltered and filtered samples of our water, and we analyzed our results against Tap Score’s HGL (Health Guideline Level).  The Waterdrop Chubby didn’t blow us away in our laboratory testing, but the manufacturer doesn’t claim that it’s capable of reducing many of the contaminants found in our water supply.  Let’s dive into our test results so you can see what we mean.  Health-Related Contaminants Score: 3.50 We first wanted to evaluate how effectively the Chubby pitcher could reduce health-related contaminants in our water.  8 contaminants with health effects were detected in our unfiltered water.  Long-term exposure to these contaminants has been linked to a number of possible health concerns, including kidney issues, blood effects, developmental problems, and gastrointestinal effects.  While the majority of these contaminants were found at trace levels that didn’t exceed the Tap Score HGL, we were concerned about uranium and fluoride, which did exceed their HGLs:  - Uranium was detected at a concentration of 0.014 PPM (the HGL is 0 PPM) - 1.1 PPM of fluoride was detected (the HGL is 0.8 PPM) Let’s focus on fluoride and uranium first. Our test results showed that the Chubby pitcher didn’t reduce any fluoride. The pitcher did a slightly better job at reducing 49% uranium, to 0.0071%. However, this still exceeded the HGL of 0 PPM. Good to Know: The Chubby pitcher isn’t certified for fluoride or uranium reduction. Waterdrop only claims that it can reduce chlorine, tastes, odors, minerals, and metal ions. So, if we tested the pitcher with a water supply that contained the impurities it was designed to reduce, we think it’d do a better job overall. But we don’t know for sure until we can conduct this testing.  Moving on to the other contaminants detected below their HGLs: the Waterdrop Chubby reduced 81% barium, 86% copper, 11% molybdenum, 25% nitrate, 81% strontium, and just 2% sulfate.  We expected the Chubby to do a good job at reducing copper, barium, and strontium given that Waterdrop claims it can reduce metal ions. Conversely, Waterdrop doesn’t claim that the Chubby can reduce nitrate, sulfate, or molybdenum, so even a slight reduction of these impurities was a positive outcome.  Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 The Tap Score test we used came with a Hach chlorine test strip, which we used to test the chlorine levels in our unfiltered and filtered water.  The test detected around 1 PPM of chlorine, which makes sense given that our water is disinfected with this chemical.  As we’d hoped, the Chubby pitcher reduced 100% chlorine, and our filtered water test detected 0 PPM of this chemical. The filter is predominantly made from activated carbon media, which is known for its ability to effectively adsorb chlorine, tastes, and odors.  Minerals & pH  We found information in the Waterdrop Chubby’s product description that says it can reduce calcium and magnesium, so these were additional contaminants that we wanted to test for in our water.  We didn’t actually want to remove calcium and magnesium from our water since they’re healthy and give water a pleasant alkaline taste. The only reason to remove these minerals is to prevent the effects of water hardness, but this should be done with a point-of-entry water softener - it’s not helpful to remove them after water has already left your plumbing.  As anticipated, the Chubby pitcher reduced both these minerals substantially: - Calcium decreased by 82%, from 25.6 PPM to 7.4 PPM - Magnesium was reduced by 79%, from 6.32 PPM to 1.32 PPM Our water’s sodium concentrations also decreased by 36%, while potassium actually increased from 0 to 57.5 PPM.  We think that the Chubby filter must use a cation exchange resin, which enables it to reduce all positively charged ions in water, including some metal ions, calcium, and magnesium. We believe that the resin contains pre-loaded potassium ions, which were released in exchange for these impurities.  According to our lab test results, our water’s pH only decreased slightly, from 7.4 to 7.2. That meant our water was still within the alkaline range even after calcium and magnesium had been reduced, which we were pleased to see.  Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 We look for performance certifications as proof that a water filter can reduce contaminants as claimed by the manufacturer.  We were pleased to see that the Waterdrop Chubby has an NSF 42 certification for the reduction of chlorine, tastes, and odors.  Ideally, Waterdrop would have also obtained an NSF 53 certification for the reduction of contaminants with health effects, which could have included some of the other contaminants that the Chubby is claimed to reduce, like mercury and other metal ions.  The pitcher is only certified for one of the six contaminants that Waterdrop claims it can reduce, so it doesn’t get the top score from us in this category.  We’d at least like to see proof of third-party testing from Waterdrop, such as a contaminant data sheet listing all the contaminants that the Chubby has been tested to reduce, and the individual percentage reductions. But we were unable to find this on the product page or Waterdrop’s website.  🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 Water filter pitchers are gravity-fed filters, so we knew the Waterdrop Chubby’s flow rate would be slower than a plumbed-in filter.  We measured the pitcher’s flow rate in gallons per hour (GPH) based on our timed filtration test.  It took 7 minutes and 4 seconds for the Chubby pitcher to filter 0.414 gallons, giving it a filtration rate of 3.52 GPH.  That’s one of the fastest filtration rates we’ve achieved with a water filter pitcher. For instance, the Brita Elite filter had a filtration rate of 2.92 GPH, the PUR Plus pitcher came in at 2.82 GPH, and the Santevia MINA had a filtration rate of just 1.43 GPH. While we appreciated having quick access to our filtered water, we want to point out that filtration speed isn’t necessarily a mark of performance quality.  Our goal wasn’t to find the fastest way to filter our water, especially given that there are some advantages of extending water’s contact time with the filter media. But we still thought filtration rate was a useful point of comparison for the pitcher filters we tested.  📐 Design Score: 8.8 We know that for many folks, a water filter pitcher is an investment that they hope to use for years. So design was another important factor that we considered when testing the Waterdrop Chubby.  In our testing notes, we commented on the look, feel, and practicality of the Chubby pitcher. We also checked certification databases to see if the pitcher had any materials safety certifications.  The Waterdrop Chubby isn’t the only water filter pitcher currently available on Waterdrop’s website. There’s also the Waterdrop Elfin pitcher and the Waterdrop Lucid pitcher.  As far as we can tell, these pitchers all use the same NSF 42 certified filter and their only difference is design: the Elfin holds just 5 cups of water (the Lucid and Chubby hold 10 cups) and the Chubby has a wooden handle. The Chubby pitcher is sold in a few different colors: skyblue, clear, and white. Component Quality Score: 8.00 The Waterdrop Chubby is made from “BPA-free advanced plastics”. We reached out to Waterdrop’s customer service team, who confirmed that the plastic used in its pitchers and reservoirs is PP (polypropylene).  Polypropylene is generally considered safe for humans and is widely used due to its high heat resistance, which makes it unlikely to leach even if it’s exposed to hot water. It’s also robust, so it has good durability and should withstand regular use.    That said, it’s not the best solution if you want to minimize your exposure to plastic as much as possible.  There’s always potential for microplastics leaching, although the studies we’ve found generally agree that this is more likely when plastics are exposed to heat and UV light. This shouldn’t be an issue if you keep the pitcher stored in a cool location away from direct sunlight.  Certification Score: 10.00 The Waterdrop Chubby has a materials safety certification as a component of its NSF 42 certification, so it got top marks from us in this category.  Waterdrop also claims that the Chubby has an NSF 372 certification for lead-free design, but we were unable to find this certification on any of the testing databases we reviewed.  Filter Materials The filter used in all Waterdrop’s pitchers and dispensers is an activated carbon fiber filter, which is silver-laced to prevent the build-up of algae and microorganisms.  We suspect the filter contains a cation exchange resin because of the increase in potassium and reduction of minerals and metal ions in our water, which can’t be achieved with an activated carbon filter alone.  Both activated carbon media and ion exchange resins are considered safe to use in water filters and are widely employed for this purpose. ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.50 We awarded the Waterdrop Chubby pitcher’s setup score based on how long it took us to assemble the pitcher and prepare the filter, and how easy we found the setup process.  The pitcher got a high score from us because of the simplicity of the process.  We didn’t have to prime the filter, which was a big win. However, we did have to soak the filter for 10 minutes and flush it in cold water before we could install it, according to the instructions in the user manual. This was easy, but more time-consuming than for many of the other pitchers we’ve tested, which only required us to hold the filter under running water for 30-60 seconds or simply install it immediately.   We also washed out the pitcher and reservoir before our first use. Our pitcher came with a filter change indicator, and we pressed the button on the lid for three seconds to activate the timer. 🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.75 Beyond setup, we wanted to see how easy the Waterdrop Chubby was to maintain.  Servicing Requirements 9.50 Replacing the filter was our main servicing requirement for the Waterdrop Chubby.  On average, most of the water filter pitchers we’ve tested have a short filter lifespan, and their filters need replacing around every 2 months.  We were pleased to see that the Chubby filter has a longer 200-gallon capacity, lasting up to three months, so maintenance would hopefully be a less frequent commitment.  Replacing the filters is simple - you just follow the same instructions for installing the initial filter. The replacement filter needs to be soaked in cold water for 10 minutes before use.  As we mentioned, the Chubby pitcher has a filter countdown timer, which we used as a reference to know when to replace our filters.  Note: You may need to replace your filters before advised by the filter change indicator depending on your water quality and usage.  Costs Score: 10.00 The Waterdrop Chubby pitcher has an ongoing cost of $0.27 per gallon - exactly the same as the PUR Plus pitcher, although not as cheap as the Brita Elite filter (which costs just $0.17 per gallon) or the Santevia MINA (which costs just $0.25 per gallon).  We calculated the pitcher’s ongoing cost based on the manufacturer’s predicted lifespan. We haven’t yet tested the pitcher for long enough to comment on the actual cost per gallon of our filter based on our own water quality and daily water usage.  🏢 Company Score: 8.65 Finally, we were keen to see how Waterdrop performed as a company based on its warranty, shipping, and returns offerings.  Warranty  Score: 8.50 Waterdrop offers a 1-year warranty for products that have a defect in materials or workmanship. That’s one of the best warranties we’ve seen for a water filter pitcher.  View Waterdrop’s warranty information here.  Shipping  Score: 9.50 Waterdrop offers free economy shipping (4-10 business days) on all orders. Standard shipping (3-6 business days) is free for orders over $200, and express shipping (2-5 business days) costs $12.99 for all orders, regardless of spend.  Waterdrop doesn’t ship to Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, or U.S. Virgin Islands. Waterdrop’s shipping policy can be viewed here.  Returns Score: 8.00 Waterdrop’s 30-day returns policy entitles customers to a full refund if they return with product within the 30-day window after their initial purchase. Read the full article

PUR vs Berkey: A Data-Driven Comparison

PUR and Berkey are two manufacturers of countertop water filters. PUR is best known for its water filter pitchers and faucet filters, and Berkey’s most popular product is its stainless steel gravity-fed water filtration systems.  Which is best for you, PUR or Berkey? We tested the PUR Plus Pitcher and the Big Berkey, and we’ve compared the most important performance features of both filters in this review. Overall Score: 7.08 PUR Best For: Most affordable upfront Certified contaminant reduction Smaller and more portable Overall Score: 8.60 Berkey Best For: Longest filter lifespan & low ongoing spend Larger water holding capacity Minimal-plastic design PUR and Berkey both provide convenient filtration solutions for folks who don’t want the hassle of permanently installing a water filter system. PUR pitchers are much more affordable than Berkey’s countertop units, and the PUR Plus filter has been performance-certified, while Berkey hasn’t. In our testing, the Big Berkey removed more contaminants than PUR, but Berkey’s fluoride filters leached aluminum oxide into our water.  📊 Our Testing Data We compared the PUR and Berkey systems using 6 key performance metrics, as outlined in the table below.  FactorPUR PlusBerkeyContaminant Reduction5.288.85Filtration Rate10.0010.00Design8.807.80Setup9.506.50Maintenance9.758.50Company7.509.10 In the next table, we’ve delved into each of our scoring categories, so you can see how we arrived at our final scores for both filters.  FactorPUR PlusBerkeyWinnerOverall Score7.088.60BerkeyHealth Related Contaminants4.509.30BerkeyAesthetic Related Contaminants9.506.70PUR PlusPerformance CertificationNSF/ANSI 42, 53, and 401nonePUR PlusFiltration Rate2.82 GPH2.6 GPHPUR PlusComponent QualityFairExcellentBerkeyComponent CertificationNSF CertifiednonePUR PlusSetupOutstandingFailingPUR PlusServicing RequirementsOutstandingWeakPUR PlusCosts$0.27/ gal$0.13/ galBerkeyWarranty Length90 daysLifetimeBerkeyShippingDepends on Distributor$50 order thresholdBerkeyReturnsnone30 daysBerkey 🚰 Contaminant Reduction In this category, we combined our water quality test results with official certification data to rank the PUR Plus and Big Berkey on their ability to remove common drinking water contaminants.  Our Lab Test Results We tested our water supply, then tested it again after filtering it through the PUR and Berkey systems. Our lab test of choice was Tap Score by SimpleLab, and we analyzed our test data against Tap Score’s own HGL (Health Guideline Level). The PUR Plus pitcher can only be used to filter treated water, so we tested it with our treated groundwater supply.  At the time of our test, Berkey claimed that the Big Berkey system could be used to filter untreated water, so we tested it with both a municipal water source and a river water source.  We used two different treated water sources when testing the Big Berkey and PUR water filters, which contained trace concentrations of different contaminants.  Because each system was tested separately, at different times, we can’t draw direct comparisons between the two. However, the data is still interesting and allowed us to conduct our scoring accordingly. We’ve shared the unique contaminants detected in each water source, and how effectively the PUR and Berkey systems addressed these contaminants, in the table below.  Berkey did a much better job at targeting the contaminants in our source water, so it got the best overall score here.  Health-Related Contaminants We awarded the PUR Plus filter a score for reducing health-related contaminants based solely on our treated water test.  We calculated the Big Berkey’s health-related contaminants score by combining the scores of our treated water and untreated water testing.  Our Treated Water Test The treated water that we tested with PUR was groundwater obtained from a shared well, which had been filtered and disinfected in a dedicated water treatment facility. In our water, 8 contaminants with potential health effects were detected (listed in the next table). Fluoride and uranium were detected at trace levels that exceeded the Tap Score HGL, so we were the most concerned about these contaminants.  Our filtered water test results showed us that the PUR Plus pitcher had done a great job of reducing 100% strontium, 98% copper, and 80% uranium. It was less capable of targeting the other contaminants detected: it only reduced 42% nitrate, 23% molybdenum, and 4% sulfate and barium. And, disappointingly, it reduced 0% fluoride.   It’s important to note, especially in the case of fluoride and uranium (given that these were detected above the HGL), PUR doesn’t claim that the Plus filter can reduce these contaminants. If we’d tested the filter with water containing the contaminants that the PUR Plus is tested and certified to remove, our results probably would have been better. The treated water we used to test the Big Berkey was a chlorinated city water supply. Our lab test detected 10 contaminants with potential health effects. We were the most concerned about lead, cobalt, chloroform, total THMs, and bromodichloromethane, because these contaminants were detected in concentrations that exceeded the HGL.  We were pleased to see that post-filtration, the Big Berkey had reduced lead, disinfection byproducts, copper, and barium by 100%. It also reduced cobalt by 3.23%. But an unexpected outcome was that the Big Berkey had increased our water’s aluminum concentration to 1.4 PPM - concerning when even the EPA’s legal limit for this contaminant is just 0.2 PPM. We deduced that aluminum oxide was leaching from the Berkey fluoride filters, which use activated alumina filtration media.  Additionally, our water’s fluoride concentration had only been reduced by 50%, which was disappointing given that Berkey sells dedicated fluoride filters that are supposed to reduce this impurity by up to 99.99%.  We decided to test the Berkey again. This time, we ran 100 gallons of water through the filters as part of the priming process. We got better results in our second test: 100% of fluoride was removed by the PF2 filters, and while our water’s initial aluminum concentration (0.052 PPM) had still increased, this time only 0.069 PPM of aluminum was detected - just a 32% increase.  Good to Know: Because we tested the Big Berkey twice, the system’s treated water score was based on an average of both test scores. Interestingly, potassium and sodium were two other impurities that increased post-filtration in our Big Berkey test. But in this case, we don’t think the Berkey filters were to blame. We spoke to several SimpleLab experts, who theorized that these ions were present in higher concentrations in the separate 100 gallons of water we initially sent through the filters. We think that these ions built up in the system and filters, then came out in the filtered water when we tested a different water source for the project. We confirmed this theory by testing the priming water, which did in fact have higher levels of these ions. See our test report here.  Our Untreated Water Test As we mentioned, we didn’t test the PUR filter because it’s designed for filtering treated water only, so we only tested the Big Berkey with untreated water. The Big Berkey did an excellent job at removing 100% total coliform (which may indicate the presence of harmful bacteria) and our test results showed that our filtered river water was microorganism-free and safe to drink.  Aesthetic Contaminants Chlorine was the only aesthetic contaminant that was detected in our unfiltered water supplies. The test water we used for the PUR Plus pitcher contained around 1 PPM of free chlorine, and around 0.5 PPM was detected in the test water used for the Big Berkey. Both PUR and Berkey removed 100% of chlorine from our water. We taste-tested our filtered water from both systems, and we could no longer detect any unpleasant tastes or odors associated with this chemical.  However, our first test with the Big Berkey pulled down its aesthetic score because the aluminum oxide in our water increased its pH to 8.7. Certifications The best reassurance that a water filter can reduce contaminants as claimed by the manufacturer is an official performance certification. We looked at whether or not the PUR Plus and Big Berkey were certified by the NSF, IAPMO, or WQA to support their manufacturers’ performance claims.  We awarded the PUR Plus the better score here because it has an NSF performance certification to Standards 42, 53, and 401. In fact, it got top marks in this category because it’s certified to reduce all the contaminants that PUR claims it can reduce. Unfortunately, Berkey has no official certifications; only test data from several third-party laboratories, which isn’t as reassuring. 🚦Filtration Rate We timed how long it took to filter water in the PUR Plus pitcher and the Big Berkey, then used this data to calculate a gallons-per-hour (GPH) measurement for each system. We’ve compared the filtration rates of PUR and Berkey in the table below.  ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RatePUR Plus10.002.82 GPHBerkey10.002.6 GPH Both filters had pretty fast filtration rates in our testing, but PUR just won, with a filtration rate of 2.82 GPH (based on its ability to filter 0.25 gallons of water in 5:19 minutes). Berkey’s flow rate was similarly quick, at 2.6 GPH. This was the rate of filtration with 2 black filters and 2 fluoride filters. Providing you use the same number of filters as us in the Big Berkey system, you’ll get almost the same decent flow rate as you would with the PUR pitcher. 💲 Upfront Cost If you have a set budget, you might be wondering how PUR and Berkey compare when it comes to upfront cost.  The Big Berkey is much more expensive than the PUR Plus pitcher, with an upfront cost of $447. This doesn’t include the cost of the Berkey fluoride filters, which are an optional add-on and cost an extra $99.99.  When we got the PUR 7-cup pitcher for testing, it cost just $26.99 including the initial basic filter, which makes it around one-sixteenth of the price of the Big Berkey without the fluoride filters. We purchased the PUR Plus filter separately at an extra cost.  Different Berkey distributors may have slightly different prices, and some may offer seasonal sales, but one thing’s for certain: PUR is the cheaper investment by a mile here.  ProductPriceFilters IncludedPUR Plus 7 cup$26.991 filterBerkey$4472 filters Additional Comparisons: - Berkey vs Brita: Rated & Compared - Clearly Filtered vs Berkey: A Detailed, Data-Driven Comparison - ZeroWater and Berkey: Which is Better? - Brita vs PUR: Objective Study 📐 Design To review the PUR and Berkey systems in this category, we analyzed their component quality by evaluating their materials and noting how they looked, felt, and operated in terms of sturdiness and durability. We also looked for evidence of certifications for materials safety.  You can see the design scores we assigned to both filters in the table below.  ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyPUR Plus8.80FairNSF CertifiedBerkey7.80ExcellentNot Certified Although it got a lower component quality score due to its majority-plastic design, the PUR Plus got the better overall score in this category because it’s certified for materials safety.  Good to Know: Berkey can’t sell its products in California or Iowa due to its lack of materials safety certification (NSF 372 for lead-free components). Filter Models If you want to be able to choose between similar filter models with different water-holding capacities, both PUR and Berkey have got you covered. But which is best in terms of product diversity and choice? PUR currently sells three water filter pitchers and one dispenser that are compatible with the PUR Plus filter:  - 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 All PUR pitchers and dispensers are made from BPA-free plastic. Depending on the pitcher you choose, you might be able to buy it with a blue, grey, or black lid and handle.   Berkey has a more extensive countertop water filter system range: - 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) Most Berkey units have stainless steel chambers. The exception is the Berkey Light, which has a BPA-free plastic construction.  We think Berkey is best if you just want as many size choices as possible, but most of its systems look the same, while PUR offers the choice of several colors, which you might prefer.  Component Quality  How do PUR and Berkey match up in terms of component quality? The Big Berkey excels here because its design mostly avoids the use of plastic. It’s made from 304 stainless steel, which won’t leach microplastics and shouldn’t rust (we found a few customer reviews on Amazon complaining about rusting, but we have no way to prove the legitimacy of these claims). There are still a few plastic components, including the filters’ plastic mounts, the fluoride filters’ casings, and the plastic spigot, but it’s the better option if you want to avoid storing your water in a plastic reservoir.  The PUR Plus pitcher and reservoir are made from NAS or SAN plastics. It also uses polypropylene (again, BPA-free) for its filter housings and lids. While these plastics are widely used for food and beverage storage, you might personally be concerned about the leaching of toxins and other microplastics. In this case, none of the PUR pitchers are going to tick your boxes for design quality. Filter Materials From what we can tell, Berkey filters have a more complex design than PUR’s, which explains why Berkey’s contaminant reduction abilities appear to be more comprehensive.  PUR filters use granular activated carbon media and ion exchange resin, which are housed inside a plastic cartridge.  The Black Berkey filters also use activated carbon media and ion exchange resin, as well as four additional media that Berkey has chosen not to disclose. The filters are glued to plastic mounts. Berkey’s PF2 fluoride filters are made from an activated alumina media inside a plastic housing. While activated alumina is used by numerous water filter manufacturers, we can’t be 100% certain of the safety of this material in Berkey’s case given that our filters leached aluminum oxide into our water. Materials Safety Certification Materials safety certifications can be obtained as a component of performance certifications and are a reassuring sign of design quality.  PUR has obtained a materials safety certification from the NSF, but Berkey doesn’t have one, so PUR got the better score in this category.  ⚙️ Setup While the PUR Plus pitcher and the Big Berkey system are both countertop gravity-fed units, their setup processes are very different.  We timed how long it took to assemble and prepare the filters for both systems, and noted how easy the process was. The table below displays these timings and our setup scores. ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimePUR Plus9.50Less than 5 minutesBerkey6.501 hour 20 minutes Setup for the PUR Plus was significantly easier than it was for the Big Berkey because PUR’s filters don’t need to be primed.  After unboxing the filter, we could just hold it under running water for 30 seconds. We didn’t have to soak it or use any special priming devices - after a quick flush with water, it was ready to install in the pitcher straight away.  The other setup jobs were simple, too. We just washed out the pitcher and reservoir with warm, soapy water, then slotted the filter into the reservoir and the reservoir into the pitcher. The process took less than 5 minutes in total.  Berkey’s setup process was much more time-consuming because of the difficult filter priming process we encountered.  A tan priming washer was included in our box, and we found it difficult to get a proper seal with this tool on our faucet. Berkey also sells a blue priming nipple, but this only works with older faucets. If you have a modern faucet, such as a faucet that pulls out or one with sprayer handles, bad luck - none of Berkey’s filter priming methods work with these.   The other setup tasks were relatively straightforward, including washing and assembling the water chambers. But in total, we spent 1 hour 20 minutes setting up the Big Berkey because of the (in our opinion, unnecessarily difficult) filter priming process.  🔧 Maintenance Berkey and PUR also differ in terms of maintenance requirements, including the frequency and difficulty of filter replacements, and their long-term filter costs.  We’ve shared our maintenance scores for the systems in the table below.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsPUR Plus9.75Outstanding$0.27/ galBerkey8.50Weak$0.13/ gal Both units have low ongoing filter costs, but PUR was the easiest to maintain, so it took the top spot in this category.  Servicing Requirements  The main servicing requirement for the PUR Plus and Big Berkey is replacing the filters.  PUR’s filters need replacing much more frequently than Berkey’s, but it got the better score from us because we found it super simple to maintain.  As with our initial filter, we only had to hold the replacement filter under running water for 30 seconds before we could swap it out for the old one. Most of PUR’s pitchers have a filter change reminder light, too, and we used ours as a reference for when we should buy a new filter.  Replacing the filters in the Big Berkey was also easy, but we encountered the same hassle and annoyance of the filter priming process for the replacement filters. Berkey advises cleaning the Black Berkey elements with a Scotch Brite pad every 3-6 months to extend their lifespan and remove buildup that could cause flow issues. Even though this was more work, we did it to avoid having to replace the filters for as long as possible.  The chambers/pitcher reservoirs for both systems also needed cleaning every few days to prevent the accumulation of scale and other residue. We found it easier to clean the PUR Plus pitcher because of its smaller size - it fitted much more comfortably in our kitchen sink.  Maintenance Costs Both Berkey and PUR are on the affordable end when it comes to their ongoing maintenance costs.  Berkey was the winner in this category - we calculated its ongoing filter cost as $0.13/gallon (the Black Berkey elements cost $0.034/gallon for a pair and the fluoride filters cost $0.09/gallon). This was based on the predicted lifespan of a pair of Black Berkey elements, which is 6,000 gallons according to Berkey. The PUR Plus’ long-term filter cost is slightly higher at $0.27/gallon, and PUR’s projected filter lifespan is lower, at just 40 gallons.  We’d expect Berkey’s filters to last longer given that they’re larger and can be washed to reduce clogging of the media, but we’re not sure whether or not Berkey’s 6,000-gallon filter lifespan claim is slightly exaggerated.   🏢 Company We were keen to know how PUR and Berkey compared as companies. To do this, we looked at both manufacturers’ warranties, returns, and shipping policies.  Good to Know: Berkey filters aren’t exclusively sold by the manufacturer. There are a number of Berkey distributors, and we’re using data from BigBerkeyWaterFilters.com, one of the largest distributors.  The company scores we awarded to Berkey and PUR are listed in the table below.  ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsPUR Plus7.5090 daysFree shipping on orders over $99 to the lower 48 states30 daysBerkey9.10LifetimeDepends on distributorNone BigBerkeyWaterFilters.com did better overall thanks to its long warranty and decent returns offering.  Warranty Read the full article

Santevia MINA Review: An Objective, Data-Driven Analysis

The Santevia MINA is an alkaline water filter pitcher that filters and adds minerals to water. We got our hands on the pitcher and conducted our own testing at home, scoring its performance across a range of categories.  In our testing, the pitcher did a great job of removing 100% chlorine and several heavy metals, but fluoride wasn’t reduced at all, and calcium and magnesium actually decreased, despite the manufacturer’s claims to add healthy minerals. Overall Score: 8.45 How We Test & Score 8.12 Contaminant Reduction 8.10 Design 9.75 Maintenance 8.50 Filtration Rate 9.50 Setup 7.95 Company What We Like Easy to set up - no filter priming necessary Affordable upfront & ongoing costs No plumbing or electricity connection required Third-party tested to reduce 85 contaminants  Simple maintenance  What We Don’t Like Not performance certified Reduced healthy minerals in our testing Didn’t reduce fluoride in our water Free shipping only offered to orders over $99 Price$49.99Contaminants Reduced85Certifications-ProcessCarbon + Ion Exchange + RemineralizationFilter Capacity80 gallonsAnnual Cost~$120Warranty90 days 📊 Scoring Data Our overall score for the water filters we test is based on a weighted average of 6 different performance rankings. We’ve shared our scores for the Santevia MINA pitcher in each testing category in the table below. CriteriaResultsHealth Related Contaminants83Aesthetic Related Contaminants95Performance CertificationNot certifiedFiltration Rate1.43 GPHComponent QualityOutstandingComponent CertificationNot certifiedSetupOutstandingServicing RequirementsOutstandingCosts$0.25/ gallonCompanyBelow Average 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 8.12 Anyone’s main intention with a water filter is to reduce contaminants, so this was our testing priority for the Santevia MINA pitcher.  We conducted our own water quality tests and looked for performance certifications by the NSF, IAMPO, or WQA to award the Santevia MINA’s overall contaminant reduction score.  Our Performance Testing Score: 8.36 We used Tap Score tests by SimpleLab to take a sample of our unfiltered water. We then filtered the water through the Santevia MINA pitcher and took a final water sample, so we could compare our results.  We used Tap Score’s HGL (Health Guideline Level) to evaluate the safety of the contaminants detected in our water based on their concentrations.  Health-Related Contaminants Score: 8.30 We started by evaluating the health-related contaminants that the Santevia MINA pitcher could remove.  Our test water is treated groundwater from a shared well. In our unfiltered water test, 8 contaminants with health effects were detected. Some of the health effects associated with repeated long-term exposure to these contaminants include blood effects, kidney damage, developmental issues, and gastrointestinal effects.  6 of these contaminants were detected in trace levels below the Tap Score HGL, but uranium and fluoride exceeded their HGLS:  - 0.014 PPM of uranium was detected, exceeding the HGL of 0 PPM - 1.1 PPM of fluoride was detected, exceeding the HGL of 0.8 PPM Our filtered water test showed us that the Santevia MINA had done a great job of reducing 100% uranium, but we were disappointed to see that our water’s fluoride concentration actually increased slightly to 1.2 PPM, which may be due to the remineralization media containing traces of fluoride. The MINA pitcher isn’t certified for fluoride reduction, but its data performance sheet shows that the pitcher reduced 40.5% in the third-party testing. That’s why we were disappointed to see that the filter didn’t remove any fluoride from our water.  As for the contaminants with health effects that were detected below the HGL, the MINA pitcher reduced 78% barium, 100% copper, 100% molybdenum, 77% nitrate, and 72% strontium. We were pleased with its filtration performance here. We do wish the filter had reduced closer to 100% nitrate, but the manufacturer doesn’t claim it can reduce this contaminant, and nor has it been tested for nitrate reduction.  One anomaly with our results was that rather than being reduced, our water’s sulfate concentrations actually increased by 98%, from 8.4 PPM to 16.7 PPM. This was still well within the lab’s HGL of 500 PPM, but an unexpected result all the same. Our theory is that the filter’s remineralization media most likely contains sulfate minerals, which caused the increase. Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 We used our Hach chlorine test strip, included in our Tap Score sample kit, to find out how much chlorine our unfiltered water contained.  Around 1 PPM of free chlorine was detected, which is typical for a treated water supply - up to 4 PPM of chlorine is considered safe in drinking water, and chlorine is the most common chemical used for water disinfection purposes.   We tested our water again with another chlorine test strip once it had been filtered through the Santevia MINA pitcher, and this time, the chlorine levels detected were 0 PPM.  That means the pitcher’s granulated activated carbon (GAC) element had done its job in adsorbing chlorine, and we noticed that our filtered water had a cleaner, fresher taste.  Minerals & pH  The Santevia MINA isn’t doing anything unique or novelty from a contaminant reduction perspective, and its main selling point is that it filters and alkalizes water by introducing healthy minerals. So we were keen to test the filter pitcher to see how it affected our water’s mineral concentration and pH.  Our unfiltered water contained 25.6 PPM of calcium, 6.32 PPM of magnesium, and 9.3 PPM of sodium. This is pretty normal for drinking water - a USDA survey of the mineral content in residential tap water concluded that on average, the concentration of calcium and magnesium was 20-30 PPM and 10 PPM respectively.  Given that the MINA pitcher uses remineralization media that “infuses healthy minerals like calcium and magnesium into water”, we expected to see an increase in these two minerals. But actually, both were reduced:  - Calcium decreased by 71%, to 7.4 PPM - Magnesium was reduced by 49%, to 3.2 PPM Our water’s sodium concentrations also saw a 285% increase, to 37.1 PPM.  We believe that the cause of this was the cation exchange resin in the filter, which targets positively charged ions like calcium and magnesium, as well as other dangerous contaminants like radium, barium, and strontium. We think that the resin released some of the pre-loaded sodium ions in exchange for these impurities.  It seems that the ion exchange resin’s mineral reduction outweighed the remineralization media’s introduction of additional minerals. This meant that overall, our water’s calcium and magnesium concentrations were lower.  This was a major disappointment to us given that the MINA pitcher is advertised as a remineralization filter, yet it didn’t even retain our water’s original concentrations of healthy minerals.  As for our water’s pH, our lab test detected an increase of 0.1, from 7.4 to 7.5. This kept our water within the alkaline range, but it wasn’t quite the “up to 2.0” pH raise promised by the manufacturer.  When we first got the pitcher, we tested our water with a pH meter. This detected our unfiltered water at 7.89 pH, and our filtered water’s pH had increased to 9.94. However, this testing was done on a separate occasion. Related Articles: - The Overall Best Water Filter Pitchers We've Tested - Discussing if Alkaline Water Filter Pitchers Actually Work Performance Certifications Score: 6.00 The Santevia MINA pitcher isn’t performance-certified by the NSF, IAMPO, or WQA, so it got the base score of 6 in this category.  We still wanted to compare the manufacturer’s third-party testing data with our own test results, so that’s what we’ve done here.  According to the manufacturer's third-party test results, it can reduce 99.9% chlorine, 40.5% fluoride, 80.0% barium, and 98.5% copper. In our own testing, the pitcher reduced 100% chlorine, 78% barium, and 100% copper, which is pretty in line with the manufacturer’s test data.  The only letdown was fluoride - it wasn’t reduced at all in our water.  The pitcher has also been tested to remove more than 75 additional contaminants, but we can’t compare this data to our own results because none of these contaminants were detected in our water. 🚦Filtration Rate Score: 8.50 We knew that the Santevia MINA pitcher would filter our water more slowly than a system connected to our water line, and we wanted to compare the pitcher’s filtration rate to the other popular pitchers we’d tested.  We timed how long it took the pitcher to filter our water and noted our results. We were able to filter 0.383 gallons of water in 16:04 minutes, which worked out at a filtration rate of 1.43 GPH. This is pretty fast for a water filter pitcher, but not the fastest we’ve seen. For instance, when we tested the Brita Elite filter, it had a filtration rate of 2.92 GPH. The PUR Plus pitcher was also faster, with a filtration rate of 2.82 GPH.  We’re wondering if filtration might be slightly slower due to the remineralization media, which none of these other filters use. 📐 Design Score: 8.10 We didn’t only test the Santevia MINA for its filtration speed and effectiveness - we also wanted to see, feel, and use the pitcher ourselves to form an opinion on its design quality.  Alongside our own testing notes, we checked online to see if the pitcher had any materials safety certifications for its design.  Santevia sells just one MINA pitcher, which has a 2-liter or 9-cup capacity and is available with a white or black lid, handle, and filter.  The pitcher works like any other water filter pitcher. The remineralization media is included in the filter cartridge, so water gets filtered and remineralized at the same time.  Component Quality Score: 9.50 The Santevia MINA pitcher is made from Tritan plastic.  Tritan has a few advantages over other materials when used for water filter pitchers: it’s tough and durable, is lighter than glass and won’t shatter, and, according to the manufacturer, has “no estrogenic and androgenic activity”. The most popular manufacturer of Tritan plastic is Eastman; you can read more about the safety of this plastic on Eastman’s website. However, like many plastics, Tritan still has its risks, according to a number of studies. One study found that Tritan leached chemicals when stressed by UVA or UVC light, and could leach chemicals even when unstressed. Another study detected BPA release from two out of 10 Tritan water bottles tested, despite Tritan being listed as a BPA-free plastic.  We know many folks want to avoid using plastic as much as possible, and in that case, it’s worth considering Santevia’s Glass Water System, which has a mostly glass design. We love the look of this system, but at $319, it’s not cheap, and it doesn’t have the portability advantage of the MINA pitcher.  Certification Score: 6.00 We also wanted to consider materials safety certifications in the design category because they’re a green flag when it comes to design safety on the whole, telling us that a filter has been tested and meets the standard of the testing organization.  Unfortunately, the MINA pitcher doesn’t have a materials safety certification, so it gets a lower score from us here.  Filter Materials The filter cartridge that’s used in the Santevia MINA pitcher combines three filtration media: granulated activated carbon (GAC) media, ion exchange resin, and remineralization media. These media are enclosed in a plastic casing.  Carbon media is usually made from natural materials like coconut shell and coal, while ion exchange resins are made from sulfonated styrene, methacrylic acid, and divinylbenzene (DVB). The remineralization media is made from a “mineral blend”.  Carbon and ion exchange are commonly used by water filter manufacturers, and all the materials in the Santevia MINA filter are considered safe for their purpose. ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.50 Given that it doesn’t need a permanent install, we expected that the Santevia MINA pitcher would be quick and easy to set up.  And this was true: we didn’t have to prime the filter. According to the user manual, we just had to hold it under running water for 1 minute shaking it and tapping the sides until the water ran clear, before we could start using it straight away.  We unboxed the system, then washed the pitcher and reservoir in warm water with mild dish soap. We dried the components, installed the filter, and filled the reservoir with cold tap water. Job done! We think the Santevia MINA is a great choice for folks who don’t want the hassle of a difficult install. 🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.75 To award the maintenance score to the MINA pitcher, we analyzed the filter’s servicing requirements and calculated the ongoing filter cost.  Servicing Requirements 9.50 The main servicing requirement for the MINA pitcher was replacing the filter, which was as easy as installing the initial filter.  We just removed the old filter and inserted the new filter in its place. Again, no filter priming was necessary - we just held the replacement filter under running water before installing it. The Santevia MINA pitcher doesn’t have a filter countdown timer. If you want, you can sign up to Filter Ease to receive SMS or email updates from Santevia to remind you when to replace your filters.   These reminders are based on Santevia’s filter lifespan estimates (80 gallons or up to 2 months), so you may need to replace your filters more frequently depending on your water quality and usage.  Costs Score: 10.00 The Santevia MINA pitcher got the top mark from us here because it has a super affordable ongoing cost of just $0.25/ gallon.  That makes the pitcher one of the cheaper filters of its kind - it’s cheaper than the PUR Plus filter, which has an ongoing cost of $0.27 per gallon, and the Clearly Filtered pitcher, which has a cost per gallon of $0.55.  We were pleased with the long-term affordability of the MINA pitcher, even if we’d have to replace the filters quite often. 🏢 Company Score: 7.95 Finally, we wanted to assess Santevia as a company based on its warranty, shipping, and returns offerings.  Warranty  Score: 7.50 Santevia’s warranty length is 90 days - the same length as most other warranties for the water filter pitchers we reviewed. The MINA pitcher is warranted against manufacturing defects and shipping damage only.  View Santevia’s warranty information here.  Shipping  Score: 8.50 Santevia offers free shipping to customers spending more than $99 on orders, excluding Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and rural areas. We wish the minimal spend for free shipping was slightly lower given that the pitcher only costs around $50, so you’ll probably end up paying a shipping fee.  Returns Score: 8.00 The 30-day returns policy for the MINA pitcher is also pretty average for water filter pitchers. Santevia allows returns or exchanges if customers are unsatisfied with their product “for any reason”, as long as they have the original packaging and can provide their order number. Found this review helpful? Comment below or share this article! Read the full article

Water Intoxication: Can You Drink Too Much Water?

Have you ever wondered what happens if you drink too much water? Our bodies certainly need water for survival, but too much water consumption can lead to serious health consequences. It's always possible to overdue too much of a good thing. In this article, we will discuss what water intoxication is, the causes of water intoxication, signs and symptoms, and recommendations for daily water intake to prevent water intoxication from occurring. 📌 Key Takeaways - Water intoxication is when you drink more water than your body and kidneys can get rid of. - Water toxicity can have severe consequences and potentially lead to death if not treated immediately. - Events of water intoxication tend to be rare, most people struggle with dehydration. 🤔 What is Water Intoxication? When you drink more water than your kidneys can get rid of this is called fatal water intoxication or water toxicity or water poisoning. One of the roles of the kidneys is to filter our blood and produce urine. Our kidneys can only handle so much. In fact they are able to remove about 0.8 to 1.0 L per hour. If you're drinking too much water the kidneys will have difficulty keeping up. This can lead to too much water in the blood which dilutes electrolyte concentrations resulting in electrolyte imbalances. One of the main electrolytes that would decrease below normal levels is sodium. When the blood sodium concentration drops below 135 mmol/L, this is called hyponatremia. This is detrimental because sodium helps the body maintain fluid balance. When sodium levels drop because of the excessive water consumption, fluid will move outside to inside the body's cells resulting in swelling. Imagine a water balloon - it only has so much water capacity before it bursts. The same goes for our human cells. When this occurs to our brain cells it is very dangerous and life threatening. 🔎 What Happens if You Drink Too Much Water? When the brain cells begin to swell from excessive intake of water this increases pressure on the skull. This extra fluid in the brain is known as edema which leads to central nervous system dysfunction. If you're wondering what happens when you drink too much water look out for the following signs and symptoms. In these severe cases, water intoxication can even cause seizures, brain damage, comas , and even death. - nausea - vomiting - headaches - difficulty breathing - confusion - muscle weakness or cramping - increased blood pressure - double vision - drowsiness 🩺 What Causes Water Intoxication? There are certain activities or health conditions that may put you at a higher risk for water intoxication. For the most part, it includes people that participate in high intensity endurance sports or those with certain mental health conditions. Endurance Sports There are instances where improper hydration can lead to water intoxication in endurance athletes . This can occur when an athlete such as an ultra-runner may have higher water intake in addition to electrolyte loss through sweat. These two combinations put endurance athletes at a greater risk. In one study, 13% of 488 participants in the Boston Marathon had hyponatremia symptoms, 0.6% had critically low sodium (levels less than 120 mmol/L). You are at a higher risk for hyponatremia during high intensity endurance events and in hotter climates. Military Training Between 2007 and 2022 the Military Health System and Defense Health Agency reported 1690 cases of exercise related hyponatremia among active service personnel. Symptoms of hyponatremia can present itself as dehydration so accurate diagnosis and treatment is vital. In a 2015 report, it was determined that too much water consumption during 40 kilometer marching exercise in hot weather resulted in a fatal outcome. The soldier at the time had consumed almost 13L of water during this exercise when his peers had consumed around 10 L. Mental Health Conditions Compulsive water drinking also known as psychogenic polydipsia is being reported more frequently in psychiatric populations. The effects of excessive water drinking can lead to the side effects mentioned earlier in this article including hyponatremia, nausea, vomiting and in severe cases death. While it is mostly commonly seen in chronic schizophrenia, other mental health disorders such as affective disorders, mental retardation, psychosis, personality disorders, and anxiety are also associated with psychogenic polydipsia. However, no specific cause for compulsive water drinking has been identified. Drug Interactions There have been several cases where use of MDMA (also known as ecstasy) has resulted in hyponatremia. This is partly because after ingestion of ecstasy there is a misconception about water intake resulting in over consumption of water intake and water intoxication. 📖 How Do You Know If You're Drinking Too Much Water? Is is important to note that water toxicity is rare. Most people have difficulty not drinking enough water, however if you feel like you're drinking too much water below are a few things to look out for. Signs of Over Hydration Urine color is a very practical way to determine how well hydrated you are, whether you're dehydrated or drinking too much water. The goal is for your urine to be a pale yellow. However, if your urine is consistently clear, this may be a sign that you are drinking too much water. Pay attention to how often you are going to the bathroom! If you're going to the bathroom more than usual then this could be a sign you're drinking too much fluid. Keep in mind you should urinate six to eight times per day. Other signs and symptoms Consuming too much water can have the same symptoms as dehydration. However, if you have been drinking an excess amount of water and experience the following symptoms seek medical treatment immediately. Other signs and symptoms you're consuming excess water include throbbing headaches all day, discoloration of your hands, face and lips, weakness, muscle cramping and fatigue. 📥 How Much Water Should You Drink? So, how much water should you drink? Well, there are no "official" guidelines on how much water a person should drink each day according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, most people are able to stay properly hydrated if they consume 8 to 12 cups of water per day. It is important to keep in mind that your water requirements will differ depending on your body weight, physical activity, climate, age, and more. Make sure you listen to your body! One way to do this is by paying attention to the color of your urine and thirst. If for example your urine is too dark and you are thirsty, this is your body's way of telling you that you're dehydrated. 📑 The Bottom Line The bottom line is that water poisoning is rare. Most people have a more challenging time drinking enough water instead of too much. However, while it is rare some populations are more at risk including endurance athletes, active military members, psychiatric disorders and those that use MDMA. It is important to be able to identify the warning signs of water intoxication in order to have proper treatment. If you have had too much water and experience any of the symptoms discussed in this article, seek medical attention immediately. Continue reading: - How to Know If Your Drinking Too Much Water - Does Water Have Calories? - Is Cold Water Bad for Your Health? ❔ Frequently Asked Questions How Do You Know If You Have Water Intoxication? Water intoxication signs and symptoms can be similar to dehydration. However, some of the warning signs include confusion, nausea, vomiting, low sodium levels, weakness, increased blood pressure and more. You may be at risk from water intoxication if you are an endurance athlete or active military member due to the intensity of activity level required. If you have had an excessive amount of water seek medical attention immediately for proper treatment and avoid serious health complications. How Much Water is Over hydration? There is not a certain number of water per day that would cause over hydration or life threatening water poisoning since the number would likely vary from person to person. However, some resources suggest that you should not drink more than 1 L of water per hour for several hours at a time. Our kidneys are capable of eliminating up to 1L of fluid per hour via urine. As you can imagine, you would have to be drinking a very large amount of water for water toxicity to occur. Is 4 Liters of Water a Day Too Much? If you were to drink 4 L of water in a short period of time, this could result in water toxicity. However, depending on your age, weight, activity level and climate 4 L of water per day would not be too much. In fact, the institute of medicine recommends about 3.7 L of water per day for Men. Read the full article

How to Test for Microplastics in Water

Microplastics are a growing concern in US water supplies - a report of 50 studies on microplastics in drinking water noted that microplastics were “frequently present in freshwaters and drinking water”, with plastic particles in fragment, fiber, film, foam, and pellet form being the most commonly found.  Given that these tiny plastic particles have been associated with numerous concerning health effects, including inflammation, metabolism disturbances, and neurotoxicity, we don’t blame you if you’re keen to learn how your water consumption might contribute to your microplastics exposure. In this guide, we’ve shared our expert’s step-by-step guide to testing your home’s drinking water for microplastics.  🧪 Microplastics Laboratory Water Test The only accessible method of testing for microplastics for homeowners in the US is with a microplastics lab test.  An increasing number of laboratories are now offering microplastics tests for drinking water. Price depends on the comprehensiveness of the test and the size of the microplastics that are being detected, but you can generally expect to spend $150-$550+ on a single test. Why so expensive? The methods used to test for microplastics are complex, costly, and, we assume, time-consuming.  The exact process of testing your water with a microplastics laboratory test depends on the lab you choose. But generally, all you have to do is take your tap water samples. The sample-taking process looks like this:  - Buy your chosen test. We recommend going for a test supplied by an EPA-certified water testing laboratory, so you can be certain that you’re paying for a legitimate service.  - Take your water samples. The lab will send you a sampling kit, including collection bottles and sample-taking instructions. Follow the instructions to take your samples. Be careful here - you don’t want to accidentally contaminate your water and skew the results. - Ship your samples. Send the samples back to the lab in the box. Tip: a good lab should provide free postage labels with their kits for your convenience.  - Receive your results. Because testing for microplastics is complex, the turnaround time is a little longer. Most microplastics lab tests provide results within 14 days of testing.  - Decide how to act on your results. If microplastics have been detected in your water, you might want to install a water filter that has been tested and proven capable of removing these contaminants.  How accurate is lab testing for microplastics? To answer this question, we referred to information supplied by SimpleLab Tap Score, which offers a dedicated microplastics water testing kit that detects microplastics ranging in size from - - - - - Read the full article

Brita Elite Water Filter Pitcher Review

The Brita Elite Water Filter is Brita’s long-lasting filter cartridge that can be used in most Brita pitchers. It’s an upgrade of the Brita Standard filter and uses proprietary active filtering agents to remove a handful of common contaminants. In our testing, Brita Elite reduced or removed barium, copper, strontium, and nitrate from our water, but it didn’t address fluoride, and it only slightly reduced uranium. Overall Score: 6.59 How We Test & Score 4.29 Contaminant Reduction 8.80 Design 9.75 Maintenance 10.00 Filtration Rate 9.50 Setup 8.50 Company What We Like WQA and IAPMO performance certified Easy to install & quick to prime filters Fast rate of filtration Portable, no-install design Affordable upfront & ongoing costs What We Don’t Like Poor contaminant reduction in our testing Only certified to remove a handful of contaminants All-plastic design Price$40.99Contaminants Reduced33CertificationsNSF/ANSI 42, 53ProcessActivated carbonFilter Capacity120 gallonsAnnual Cost~$40Warranty1 year 📊 Scoring Data We conduct our own objective analysis for the water filters we review, which means we can use our own data to rank each filter across several different scoring categories. Our scoring system is also informed by data from official certification organizations and the manufacturer’s website to support our findings. We’ve shared our scores for the Brita Elite water filter pitcher in the table below. CriteriaResultsHealth Related Contaminants35Aesthetic Related Contaminants99Performance CertificationCertified for 45% of reduction claimsFiltration Rate2.92 GPHComponent QualityGoodComponent CertificationCertifiedSetupOutstandingServicing RequirementsOutstandingCosts$0.17/ gallonCompanyGood 🚰 Contaminant Reduction Score: 4.29 Our top priority was to remove as many contaminants as possible from our water, so the most important piece of data we collected in our testing was which contaminants the Brita Elite removed.  We also checked on WQA, IAMPO, and NSF databases to see if the filter had been certified for its ability to reduce contaminants, and how these certifications compared to Brita’s own contaminant removal claims.  Our Performance Testing Score: 3.82 We used Tap Score tests by SimpleLab to test our water before and after filtering it through our Brita Elite pitcher.  When analyzing our test data, we compared the detected contaminant concentrations to Tap Score’s own HGL (Health Guideline Level), which prioritizes human health and is stricter than the EPA legal limits. Good to Know: Our water supply is groundwater from a public well that’s treated at a dedicated treatment plant. It contains a few common groundwater impurities, and because it’s treated, it’s suitable for filtering in the Brita Elite. That said, the Elite filter had a few limitations that we identified, and we think it’s a better solution for filtering treated surface water supplies without fluoride. Health-Related Contaminants Score: 3.50 We started by determining which health-related contaminants the Brita Elite pitcher could remove from our water.  There were trace levels of 8 contaminants with potential health effects detected in our drinking water: fluoride, uranium, nitrate, copper, barium, strontium, molybdenum, and sulfate. These contaminants are associated with the following health effects:  - Developmental & skeletal effects - Gastrointestinal issues - Kidney damage - Blood effects Of these contaminants, two were detected above the Tap Score HGL: uranium (0.014 PPM detected, exceeding the HGL of 0 PPM), and fluoride (1 PPM detected, exceeding the HGL of 0.8 PPM).  Our filtered water results showed us that the Brita Elite had done a great job of reducing 100% barium and 97% copper. It also reduced uranium by 26%, nitrate by just 5%, molybdenum by just 7%, and strontium by 13%. Our water’s fluoride levels stayed exactly the same at 1.1 PPM, and sulfate actually increased slightly post-filtration, from 8.4 to 8.5 PPM.  The Brita Elite isn’t certified to reduce fluoride or uranium, and nor does Brita claim that it can reduce these contaminants. So, although these were both still present above the HGL in our filtered water results, and our performance scores were affected as a result, there wasn’t a specific fault with the filter since it simply isn’t designed with media that can remove fluoride or uranium.   We assume that we would have obtained better results with the Brita Elite if we’d tested it with water containing contaminants that it is designed to target, like lead, mercury, cadmium, and Particulates Class I (although we don’t know for certain as we haven’t actually conducted this testing).  This is a good example of the importance of testing your own water, so you know exactly what it contains, and what you need to remove - key given that water quality can vary drastically from one location to the next. Here is a table with all the data from our testing: Aesthetic Contaminants Score: 9.90 A chlorine test strip was included in our sample package so we could test our water for this contaminant ourselves. Lab testing for chlorine isn’t an option due to its volatility - it’d dissipate before the water arrived at the lab.  Our first test of our unfiltered water detected 1 PPM of chlorine residual (free chlorine). The second test of the filtered water from the Brita Elite detected 0 PPM of chlorine, telling us that the filter’s carbon core technology had done its job. Activated carbon is a popular water filtration media for reducing chlorine tastes/odors. Our filtered water had a noticeably improved taste post-filtration, with no chemical aftertastes or odors. Performance Certifications Score: 8.50 The Brita Elite is certified by IAMPO and the WQA for its performance, which is great news - but we didn’t just look for proof of certification to award the filter a score in this category.  We wanted to know how many contaminants the Brita Elite had been certified to remove compared to Brita’s performance claims. Here’s the data we found: That told us that the Brita Elite is certified to reduce 15 out of the 33 contaminants listed on the performance data sheet.  Interestingly, Brita claims that the Elite filter can remove a handful of VOCs, which it could have elected to be certified for removing alongside PFOA/PFOS as part of the NSF 53 certification. But the Brita Hub is currently the only Brita product that has been IAPMO certified for VOCs removal. 🚦Filtration Rate Score: 10.00 We timed the filtration process in the Brita Elite pitcher to see how quickly it would filter our water.   Our calculated flow rate was 2.92 GPH (gallons per hour), based on the pitcher’s ability to filter 0.391 gallons of water in 8:01 minutes.  This is pretty quick for a gravity filtration system, although we acknowledge that we tested relatively new filters, so the flow rate will likely decrease slightly as our filters become more clogged with contaminants over time.  Our intention isn’t to look for the fastest filtration speed anyway - actually, increasing water’s contact time with the filter can help improve the efficacy of contaminant removal by extending the opportunity for contaminants to be trapped in the media. But filtration speed is still helpful to know so you can get an idea of how long you’ll need to wait for your water to be filtered. 📐 Design Score: 8.80 We used our own objective data based on what we thought about the look, feel, and quality of the Brita Elite pitcher’s design, along with materials safety certification data, to award the pitcher a design score.  We got the 10-Cup Tahoe pitcher, which is practical in design and appearance - it’s not the sleekest or most modern-looking water filter pitcher we’ve tested, but it felt sturdy and appeared to be thoughtfully designed.  There are just a few main parts to the pitcher: the pitcher itself; the upper reservoir with the attached filter, and the lid. The idea is that you fill the top reservoir with water, which filters through the filter cartridge and down into the bottom reservoir, ready to pour from the spout.  A number of Brita’s filter pitchers come with a SmartLight indicator, which measures how much water you pour from the pitcher and changes color to indicate filter lifespan. We found this a useful feature on our pitcher, even though it wasn’t 100% reliable - the indicator doesn’t account for water quality and you might need to replace your filter more frequently, even if the light isn’t red.  Models & Sizes Brita sells a few different water filter pitcher models, with different water holding capacities. These are: Product (with Elite filter)Cost10-Cup Tahoe$41.996-Cup Denali$37.4910-Cup Huron$42.99 You can choose your lid/handle color for some models, including white, black, and blue.  We appreciated having a few different water-holding capacities to choose from, since we know that some folks will prefer a smaller pitcher for travel and 1-2-person use, while others will want a bigger pitcher that stores more filtered water. Component Quality Score: 8.00 The Brita filter pitchers are made from polypropylene plastic and SAN (Styrene Acrylonitrile), which are BPA-free plastics that are commonly used for food and water storage.  These plastics are considered safe and adhere to industry standards, but their safety has been questioned by a number of studies.  For instance, research into polypropylene suggests that certain chemicals used to produce this plastic, like stabilizers and additives, may leach into the food or beverage if the plastic is exposed to high temperatures. Another study of leaching of microplastics from different plastics, including polypropylene, and concluded that microplastic particles can disintegrate from the original plastic materials “under suitable conditions”. In terms of sturdiness and design quality, we thought our Brita pitcher felt strong, solid, and well-made, and we do appreciate the benefits of plastics for water filter pitchers - our Brita pitcher shouldn’t shatter like glass and won’t rust like steel.  Certification Score: 10.00 We were reassured to see that the Brita Elite pitcher has been certified for material safety as a component of its performance certifications.  That means the pitcher is endorsed by a reliable third-party testing organization (the WQA) for its materials safety based on official testing.  Filter Materials Brita says the Elite filter is made from proprietary active filtering agents. We did a bit of digging and found that Brita also refers to this media as “proprietary pleated media”, and “activated carbon core technology”.  This seems to be a fancy way of saying that the filters are activated carbon-based, which explains their ability to reduce chlorine, tastes, odors, Particulates Class I, some VOCs, and a handful of heavy metals.  There’s no mention that the Brita Elite filter uses an ion exchange resin - Brita only mentions this as a filter media for the Standard filter, which doesn’t remove as many contaminants and has a shorter lifespan. ⚙️ Setup Score: 9.50 We gave the Brita Elite pitcher a high setup score because of how easy and quick the setup process was.  There was no difficult or time-consuming filter priming process, and Brita, like many other water filter pitcher manufacturers, has recently made it possible to prepare the filters by rinsing them under running water, without having to soak them first.  We first washed the pitcher body and reservoirs in warm water with mild dish soap. We then held the filter under running water for 30 seconds, then inserted it into the upper reservoir, attached it to the pitcher, and filled it with water.  The process took us less than five minutes and required no technical skill, so we recommend this Brita pitcher to folks who want to avoid a difficult install. 🔧 Maintenance Score: 9.75 There were a couple of factors we considered when evaluating the Brita Elite pitcher in the maintenance category: its servicing costs and its ease/frequency of maintenance.  Servicing Requirements 9.50 One of the biggest selling points of the Brita Elite filters is that they last up to three times longer than most other filters for water pitchers. The filters have a lifespan of up to 6 months (120 gallons), which is significantly longer than the Brita Basic filter lifespan (40 gallons or up to 2 months). Of course, this is just an estimate, and doesn’t account for your own daily water use or the quality of your water.  As we mentioned, some Brita water pitchers have a filter change reminder on the lid, which you can use as guidance for when you need to replace your filters.  Aside from changing the filter, we also washed the pitcher every day in warm, soapy water. Brita pitchers aren’t dishwasher safe, so you’ll need to hand-wash them to prevent damage.  Costs Score: 10.00 Thanks to its super long lifespan, the Brita Elite has a very low cost per gallon of $0.17 (we calculated this based on Brita’s filter life information). That makes it really affordable to own in the long run.  Note: We haven’t yet tested our Brita pitcher for long enough to confirm whether or not the filter lasted 6 months for us. We know that our long-term filter cost would increase if we were having to replace the filters more frequently. We’ll update this review when we have this data to hand. 🏢 Company Score: 8.50 We assessed the warranty, shipping, and returns policies provided by Brita to evaluate the company as a whole. Warranty  Score: 8.50 Brita warrants its water filter pitchers for 1 year against damage not caused by incorrect use or mishandling. That’s a pretty decent warranty for water filter pitchers - similar manufacturers usually provide shorter 60-90-day warranties, likely because the upfront investment is quite small.  Find Brita’s warranty information here.  Shipping  Score: 9.00 Brita provides free shipping to all customers who spend $35 or more on their orders. Most Brita pitchers with the Elite filter cost at least $35, so there’s a good chance you’ll get free shipping if that’s what you’re going for. Returns Score: 8.00 Brita offers a 30-day unconditional money-back guarantee for its filter pitchers, which is super reassuring and not something you’ll see from all water filter pitcher manufacturers - being a big brand with a big budget works in Brita’s favor here. Found this review helpful? Comment below or share this article! Read the full article

Waterdrop Water Filter Straw Review [year]

🧾 Overview The Waterdrop is a water filter straw that can be used for filtering water on-the-go. The filter is small and lightweight, making it a handy portable clean drinking water solution that fits in most pockets and backpacks. With a 0.1 filter membrane, this water filter straw is designed to trap contaminants found in natural water sources, making it safe to drink from any river, lake or stream while hiking or camping. 💡 Features Plastic filter casing The filter casing provides a barrier between the filter and the outside air, protecting it from damage during storage and use. The casing is lightweight, but not too flimsy, and allows the device to be used exactly how it is - as a drinking water straw.  Coconut shell activated carbon filter Inside the casing is the filter itself, which has tiny pores of 0.1 microns in size, allowing you to drink from rivers, lakes and other bodies of natural water safely.  Double-sided removable cap The Waterdrop filter straw’s removable cap makes the device versatile to use in a number of different ways. You can attach it to most standard plastic water bottles to filter water straight from the bottle, or use it with water bags.  Water bags Included with the Waterdrop are two water bags: one for storing unfiltered water and one for storing filtered water. You simply attach the bags to either end of the filter device with the included flexible tubes, then hang the unfiltered water bag up high and let the filter do the work. Gravity water bag, squeeze pouch, and filter 🚦 Performance When it comes to performance, you won’t get much better than the Waterdrop. Its filter consists of a media made from thousands of tiny micropores at 0.1 microns in size, making it capable of trapping even the smallest of contaminants while allowing water to pass through.  There are four stages of filtration, with each stage removing a different set of contaminants from water. The first pre-filter fabric stage is designed to protect the filter by removing the large contaminants like stones and leaves. In the second stage, the hollow fiber membrane removes 99.9% of bacteria, and in the third stage, the activated carbon media helps give water a better taste and smell. The fourth and final stage sees water pass through a post polyester membrane, which removes any lingering rust and dust. Filling the gravity bag ⏱ Filtration time The Waterdrop straw is particularly speedy for a gravity filter, and takes around 10 minutes to filter a whole blue bag’s worth of water (1.5 gallons). Of course, speed can be affected by factors such as the quality of the water you’re filtering and the position of your filter bags or water bottle. But, generally, being designed to filter unclean natural water, the Waterdrop is well-equipped to work at fast speeds to remove contaminants in no time at all. The gravity bag can also hang from a tree 👌 Ease of Use There are three different ways you can use the Waterdrop: as a drinking straw, with a water bottle, or with the included water bags.  Using the Waterdrop as a drinking straw is the easiest option, because you simply use it to drink straight out of a water source. Ahh fresh, crisp stream water! Attaching a water bottle to the device is another simple option. After filling a water bottle with dirty water, you attach it to one end of the straw and tip it back above your head, drinking through the other end. There’s less resistance from the straw because of the position you’re holding it in, and you can simply attach your water bottle to the straw every time you want a drink.  Finally, if you’re looking to make batches of water at a time, you can use the two included bags. Connecting the bags to the straw is fairly self-explanatory, and something you should feel confident in doing after a trial run. However, this isn’t something you could easily set up while on the move - it’s best for when you’re stopping for longer than a couple of minutes. Using the filter as a straw 🏋️ Weight & Portability On its own, the Waterdrop filter straw weighs just over 1 pound. It has a smaller frame, too, making it easy to store in a big pocket or a bag. Keep in mind, though, that the capacity of the blue bag is 1.5 gallons and the capacity of the white bag is 20oz, so when these are filled and attached to the system, it’s not going to be as light and portable.  🔨 Durability The Waterdrop has a huge 100,000 gallon capacity, so you can expect it to last several years, even with regular use. Though the filter has plenty of life in it, the plastic casing is a little flimsy, so you should be careful not to store it beneath heavy items (or accidentally sit on it). ✔️ Maintenance With the device’s high capacity, you won’t need to worry about changing the filter regularly. But when it is time to buy a replacement filter, you simply buy a whole new straw - no need for any filter changing maintenance. With the device being priced at less than $20, buying a new one every few years shouldn’t be too much of a stretch on your budget.  The only other maintenance required for this filter straw is backwashing. You need to backwash the filter after every use, which clears the contaminants from the filter and prevents it from blocking up. To backwash, you simply blow through the mouthpiece and shake out the straw to get rid of any lingering water. 🔔 Pros & Cons 👍 What I Like - Versatile - 3 different uses - Tiny 0.1 micron pores for thorough filtration - 100,000 gallon capacity 👎 What I Don't Like - Requires frequent backwashing - The clean water bag needs to be held as it fills - Not portable when attached to bags ❔ Final Verdict If you’re looking for an effective water filtration solution for camping or hiking, the Waterdrop water filter straw is one of the best options on the market. Its impressively long lifespan and ability to remove contaminants up to 0.1 microns in size makes it a low-fuss, efficient solution for on-the-go water filtration - just remember to backwash it regularly to keep it in tip-top condition. Read the full article

Alexapure vs ProOne: A Data Driven Comparison

Alexapure and ProOne manufacture two very similar stainless steel countertop gravity water filtration systems, and for this review, we wanted to see which - if any - is best. In the matchup of Alexapure vs. ProOne, we’re comparing two different approaches to an almost identical filter system design. We personally tested both systems in our home to determine their ability to remove contaminants from our drinking water and river water, their speed of filtration, their setup and maintenance, and more. Overall Score: 8.93 Alexapure Best For: Removing disinfection byproducts from city water Faster filtration rate Easy setup thanks to pre-primed filters Overall Score: 8.56 ProOne Best For: Lower upfront & ongoing costs Better variety of choices (three sizes in different filter sizes, etc.) High-quality components that are certified for materials safety The Alexapure Pro has a 2.25-gallon water holding capacity. It did a great job of removing health-harmful contaminants from our city water and had the fastest water filtration rate. The ProOne Big+ holds 3 gallons of water. It struggled to remove disinfection byproducts from our water but offers more choice for model types/sizes, has a certification for materials safety, and is more affordable upfront.  📊 Our Testing Data In the table below, we’ve highlighted the 6 main criteria we used when testing and ranking the Alexapure Pro and ProOne Big+. You can see the scores for each system and how they compare.  FactorAlexapure ProProOne Big+Contaminant Reduction9.348.44Filtration Rate8.007.50Design8.4010.00Setup9.008.50Maintenance8.258.75Company8.658.90 Looking for a more detailed insight into the data behind each of our testing criteria? We’ve shared it in the table below. You can see the different sub-categories that we ranked the filters on to obtain our final scores.  FactorAlexapure ProProOne Big+WinnerOverall Score8.938.56Alexapure ProHealth Related Contaminants9.708.65Alexapure ProAesthetic Related Contaminants9.909.90TiePerformance CertificationNot CertifiedNot CertifiedTieFiltration Rate1 GPH0.77 GPHAlexapure ProComponent QualityOutstandingOutstandingTieComponent CertificationnoneNSF 42 certificationProOne Big +SetupExcellentGoodAlexapure ProServicing RequirementsGoodGoodTieCosts$0.59 per gallon$0.41/gallonProOne Big +CompanyGoodGoodTie 🚰 Contaminant Reduction We used two methods to give the Alexapure and ProOne filters an overall ranking for contaminant reduction:  - We conducted our own before-and-after testing to see what the filters removed from our water.  - We looked for official performance certifications for the filters.  Our Lab Test Results The most important data we obtained was our lab testing results.  Both manufacturers claim that their filters can be used with potable water and non-potable water (like lake water, river water, etc.), so we did two separate tests for each filter - one with city water, and one with river water from our testing location in Colorado.  We’ve listed the contaminants detected in our source water, and how the Alexapure Pro and ProOne reduced these, in the comparison table below.  Both filters performed similarly in this testing category, but the Alexapure Pro got our highest overall rating because it performed better when removing health-related contaminants from our water.  Health-Related Contaminants We conducted two separate tests to obtain one score for health-related contaminant reduction:  - A test on removing contaminants with health effects from our municipal water. - A test of the Alexapure and ProOne filters’ ability to remove bacteria (our main concern) from river water.  Our City Water Test The Alexapure Pro did a slightly better job at removing contaminants with health effects from our city water.  Our test results showed us that the Alexapure Pro had effectively removed 100% of the trace levels of the two disinfection byproducts (chloroform and total THMs), copper, aluminum, manganese, and lead that were present in our unfiltered water. It also reduced 43% barium, 16% sulfate, 6% sodium, and 1% chloride. The ProOne Big+ performed similarly, also completely removing aluminum, lead, copper, and manganese from our city water. It also removed 100% fluoride, which actually increased post-filtration in our Alexapure test (see below). However, the Big+ only reduced THMs by 47%, and chloroform by 56%, so in this test, it didn’t perform as well as the Alexapure Pro at disinfection byproducts reduction, and that’s why its score was lower.  Were there any unexpected results? Yes - in both the ProOne and Alexapure tests, some contaminants also increased post-filtration.  Fluoride, calcium, magnesium, and strontium increased in the Alexapure Pro’s filtered water, and potassium and silver appeared when they weren’t present before.  Barium, sulfate, strontium, and sodium increased in the ProOne Big+’s post-filtered water, and bromodichloromethane (another disinfection byproduct) appeared when it wasn’t present before.  After speaking to the chemists at the testing lab, we determined that the increase in most of the contaminants was likely because the water source we used for our testing was different than the water we used to prime the filters to the 100 gallons, which contained higher concentrations of these contaminants.  As for the bromodichloromethane that appeared in the water filtered by the ProOne Big+, we think this contaminant was actually present in our influent water but had dissipated before we were able to take our pre-filtration sample - hence why it only showed up in our filtered water.   Our River Water Test In our untreated surface water test, both Alexapure and ProOne got top marks for their ability to remove bacteria from the water.  The ProOne Big+ and the Alexapure Pro both eliminated total coliform, E. Coli, and Enterococcus detected in our unfiltered water sample. Aesthetic Contaminants The Alexapure Pro and ProOne Big+ got the same high scores for aesthetic water quality.  Our unfiltered city water contained around 0.5 PPM of chlorine. This contaminant is mainly responsible for aesthetic issues in municipal water because it gives water a “swimming pool” taste and smell.   Both systems use activated carbon filter media, so we were unsurprised to see that they completely removed the chlorine from our water.  Certifications We look for performance certifications as proof that a water filter can reliably remove the contaminants we’re concerned about in our drinking water.  Manufacturers don’t need to obtain performance certifications, and neither Alexapure nor ProOne have got their filters certified. (They both have third-party lab testing to NSF/ANSI Standards, but no official testing/certifications by the NSF, IAMPO, or the WQA).  That meant the Alexapure Pro and ProOne Big+ both obtained a lower score in this category. We’d love to see these manufacturers obtain an official certification to provide customers with that extra reassurance that their filters perform as advertised.  🚦Filtration Rate As gravity filtration systems, the Alexapure Pro and ProOne Big+ filter water more slowly and steadily, and their filtration rate is measured in gallons per hour (GPH).  To obtain scores for filtration rate, we timed how long it took the Alexapure and ProOne systems to filter our water. We then compared these timings to the average filtration rates for gravity-fed systems.  In the below table, we’ve documented the filtration rates for the Alexapure Pro and ProOne Big+.  ProductFiltration Rate ScoreFiltration RateAlexapure Pro8.001 GPHProOne Big+7.500.77 GPH The Alexapure Pro filtered water at a slightly faster rate of 1 GPH with just one filter, while the ProOne Big+ had a filtration rate of 0.77 GPH, using two 9-inch filters. That made the Alexapure Pro the fastest option, especially given that you could add an extra filter to increase the filtration rate further. In comparison, we were already using two of the largest filters in the ProOne model. 💲 Upfront Cost As we write this review, the cost of the Alexapure Pro, including a single filter, is around $280. You can buy a second filter for an extra $120.  The ProOne Big+ costs $229.95 with one 7-inch filter, and there’s the option to upgrade to multiple filters and increase the filter size (from 7 to 9 inches). The most expensive model, with three 9-inch filters, costs $379.95. That makes the ProOne Big+ the best option if you want to spend the least amount of money upfront because its lowest-priced offering is around $50 cheaper than Alexapure’s cheapest option.  ProductPriceFilters IncludedAlexapure Pro$2801 filterProOne Big+$229.951 filters 📐 Design We awarded Alexapure and ProOne their design scores based on two factors:  - What we thought about their component quality (from our own experience using the systems) - Whether or not the systems had an official certification for materials safety The table below shares a breakdown of the individual scores we assigned to ProOne Big+ and Alexapure Pro, and how these affected their overall design scores.   ProductDesign ScoreComponent QualityMaterials SafetyAlexapure Pro8.40OutstandingNot certifiedProOne Big+10.00OutstandingNSF 42 certification ProOne was the better brand in this category because it has been certified for component safety.  Filter Models There are currently three models in the ProOne countertop gravity filter range: - The ProOne Traveler+ (2.25 gallons) - The ProOne Big+ (3 gallons) - The ProOne Big II (2.5 gallons) The ProOne Big+ and Traveler+ are stainless steel units, and the Big II has a BPA- and PVC-free plastic design. Alexapure offers just one buying option for gravity-fed countertop water filters:  - The Alexapure Pro (2.25 gallons) We think ProOne is the better brand if choice is what you’re looking for. You can choose between different model sizes and go for the plastic option if you want a lightweight water filter to take on your travels. Alexapure’s single offering gives you no choice in system size or materials.  ProOne also lets you choose between a brushed steel or polished steel finish for its stainless steel models, and you might prefer to have the choice between two different looks. Component Quality  The Alexapure Pro and ProOne Big+ have almost identical designs. We gave them the same scores for component quality because they’re both made from high-quality stainless steel, with minimal plastic components.  We were pleased with the sturdy, rigid feel of both systems, and we didn’t notice any rusting of the chambers during our testing period. Note: we have seen mentions of rusting on select Amazon reviews, but we can’t confirm the legitimacy of these comments, especially given that Amazon reviews are so easy to manipulate.  We also appreciated that both systems came with a stainless steel spigot. Several of their well-known competitors provide a plastic spigot, with the option to upgrade (at an extra cost) to a stainless steel version. We prefer having a stainless steel spigot included in the price given that it prevents contact with plastic after our water has been filtered.   Are the Alexapure and ProOne systems entirely plastic-free? No - their filter cartridges still use plastic, but this is unfortunately almost impossible to avoid and, in our opinion, doesn’t affect the overall design quality.  Filter Materials Both the Alexapure Pro and the ProOne Big+ use activated carbon filters with a ceramic outer layer.  Activated carbon and ceramic filters are typically made from natural materials, like charcoal, coconut shell, and clay, so they’re safe to use for water treatment.  Activated carbon is best known for its ability to remove chlorine, tastes, and odors from water, while ceramic filter media is a proven method to reduce microbiological contaminants. Our own test results for contaminant removal are proof that the filters were doing their job well.  Materials Safety Certification As with performance certifications, manufacturers can obtain certifications for design and component safety, proving to their customers that their products are safe and reliable for water filtration.  We couldn’t find proof of materials safety certifications for the Alexapure Pro, which let it down in this category.  ProOne has obtained an NSF 42 certification for its filter elements. The certification is for material requirements only (so it doesn’t mean they’re NSF 42 performance-certified). ⚙️ Setup We compared how long it took to assemble and prepare the filters for the ProOne and Alexapure units, and how difficult we found the process.  Here are the scores we awarded to the Alexapure Pro and the ProOne Big+ in this category. ProductSetup ScoreSetup TimeAlexapure Pro9.0015-20 minutesProOne Big+8.5020-30 minutes Alexapure just scraped a win in this category, although we found both systems pretty quick and easy to assemble out of the box.  Assembling the Alexapure Pro took less than 30 minutes and included connecting the components and installing the filters. Our filters had been pre-primed and were shipped to us in a sterile plastic bag, which is why the Alexapure Pro got the slightly higher score.  We also didn’t have to prime the filters for the ProOne Big+, but we did have to hold them under running cold water and use the included scotch brite pad to scrub them for a couple of minutes, which meant they required slightly more work than the Alexapure Pro. Still, this wasn’t difficult or time-consuming, and setup for the Big+ also took us less than 30 minutes.  🔧 Maintenance We scored the Alexapure and ProOne systems in this category based on their separate scores for servicing requirements (and how easy we found maintenance) and maintenance costs (our calculated cost per gallon based on the manufacturer’s information on filter lifespan).  The table below breaks down the filters’ maintenance scores.  ProductMaintenance ScoreServicing RequirementsCostsAlexapure Pro8.25Fair$0.59/galProOne Big+8.75Good$0.41/gal Here, ProOne did slightly better because it had the slightly lower cost per gallon.  Servicing Requirements  Both the Alexapure Pro and the ProOne Big+ have simple maintenance requirements. Our main job was to replace the filters, and that was pretty easy for both manufacturers.  As with the initial filters we received, our replacement filters for the Alexapure Pro had been pre-primed, which meant we could install them and start using them straight away.  For the ProOne Big+, we also had the same situation as with the initial filters. The replacement filters didn’t require priming aside from a quick scrub under cold water, and they were easy to install.  We also had to clean the stainless steel water chambers (we did this at least once a week), which was easy and didn’t require any specialist cleaning products - just hot, soapy water. If your kitchen sink is quite small, you might find it tricky to fit the chambers underneath your faucet.  Maintenance Costs As far as maintenance costs are concerned, we calculated that each 9-inch filter in the ProOne Big+ had a cost per gallon of $0.41/gallon. That’s pretty cheap, although not the lowest price we’ve seen for countertop gravity filters.  A single filter in the Alexapure Pro costs $0.59 per gallon, so slightly more expensive than ProOne’s biggest filters. Still, this is about the average price for a filter of this kind.  Once we’ve tested the ProOne and Alexapure units for long enough to replace the filters, we’ll update this review with a comment on how long the filters actually lasted, and what their actual cost per gallon was.  🏢 Company Here, we compared the two companies, Alexapure and ProOne, including their warranty length, shipping, and returns. Find our company scores and the individual data for each manufacturer in the table below.  ProductCompany ScoreWarranty LengthShippingReturnsAlexapure Pro8.651 yearFree shipping to the lower 48 states30 daysProOne Big+8.905 yearsFree shipping to US-based customers30 days ProOne got the highest score in this category, with a better score for warranty length (which had the most weight in the overall score).  Warranty Length  Alexapure only offers a 1-year warranty for its filters, while ProOne warrants its water filters for 5 years (excluding the filter media or elements).  ProOne is the clear winner here - most countertop water filter manufacturers only warrant their products for 1 year.  Shipping  Alexapure offers free shipping to the lower 48 states, and this applies to all orders, regardless of spend.  ProOne offers free shipping to US-based customers who spend more than $69.95. Orders to Hawaii and Alaska incur a shipping fee, and orders to Canada may be “subject to duties and taxes”. This makes Alexapure the winner in this category because there’s no order minimum.  Returns Both Alexapure and ProOne allow customers to return their filters within 30 days of their purchase, so they’re equal in this category.  ⛔️ System Setbacks & Flaws There are a few specific setbacks and flaws of the Alexapure and ProOne systems that we think are worth mentioning here.  Alexapure Setbacks - No official performance certification – Alexapure currently only has third-party testing data to support its contaminant removal claims.  - Only comes with 1 filter – The Alexapure Pro comes with just one filter, and buying an additional filter is pretty expensive.  - Only one size available – We had just one choice when it came to size, type, and finish for the Alexapure Pro.  - Overflow risk – We noted that continuing to fill the top chamber when the bottom chamber was full caused water to overflow from the seal between the two chambers.  - Didn’t reduce water’s fluoride concentration – Alexapure claims to remove up to 97% fluoride, but in our own testing, no fluoride was removed from our water. Since we believe this may have been a temporary issue, we plan to re-test the Alexapure Pro for removing fluoride.  ProOne Setbacks - Not performance certified – Like Alexapure, ProOne doesn’t have any official performance certifications.  - Overflow risk – We identified the same overflow risk with the Big+ as with the Alexapure Pro.  - Didn’t eliminate disinfection byproducts – The ProOne Big+ did reduce our water’s disinfection byproducts, but the results were underwhelming.  🆚 Alexapure or ProOne: Which One’s for You? Ultimately, both the Alexapure and ProOne water filters have advantages and disadvantages, depending on what you’re looking for.  We Recommend the Alexapure Pro if: You have disinfection byproducts in your water and want a filter that has been proven in testing to effectively remove these contaminants.  You don’t mind having just one option when it comes to system size and finish, and prefer the simplicity of there being just one filter size.  You want the system that has the easiest setup, with absolutely no prep required for the filters. The ProOne Big+ is Best for: Anyone looking for the most affordable option. The ProOne and Alexapure filters offer very similar results, so the lowest-cost ProOne Big+ offering is best for people who want to spend as little as possible. Folks who prefer having the choice of a few different model types and sizes, including an option with a slightly larger water holding capacity (the Big+ holds 3 gallons) People who want a system with certified components for materials safety. Read the full article