SteriPEN Adventurer Water Purifier REVIEW

Apparently, the water container blocks damaging UV from the SteriPen user. Yet, there is a generally successful method of using solar UV to treat water in glass or plastic bottles, http://www.sodis.ch/Text2002/T-Howdoesitwork.htm . So, one party says UV can't go through the plastic/glass to get out, the other says UV goes through the plastic/glass to get in…? Are we talking different UV wavelengths here? Or angle of incidence? I don't want to revisit my high school physics…help me out. :)

john

John,

SODIS does work – it is generally recommended that SODIS be allowed six hours to perform its disinfecting work on non-turbid water. Is it UV-A, UV-B, or UV-C that is doing the work. Frankly, i don't know, but i bet Dr. Caffin could tell me/us. I think it takes so long b/c the container (glass or plastic) does work pretty well to prevent UV wavelength light from penetrating.

Practically, enough UV-C is prevented from exiting the container during purification, with Steri-Pen or AquaStar that it apparently/supposedly/hopefully (you pick the right word) isn't a problem. Me? I don't look at it when it's on.

I've always disagreed theoretically with the UV can't get out/through theory. Why?

1. other's experience, viz. SODIS, as you mentioned

2. my own experience. when i was a senior & a grad student, i would prepare all of the media and run/teach the Microbiology labs at the College i attended (now an august University!!) as part of a paid Fellowship. Each semester, in about the second lab, i would have the students conduct an experiment.

We'd innoculate petri dishes containing agar and place them on a shelf in front of the close glass windows (sunny or cloudy – no matter). I'd have a control left behind some equipment in a shaded area. We'd start removing them beginning after 20min exposure and working our way up to 2+ hours. I'm really sorry, but my "old-timers" is acting up and i'm forgetting the longest period of time – somewhere b/t 2 and 4 hrs, IIRC. Then, after 24-48 hrs incubation at 37C (body temp), we examine the petri dishes for bacterial growth. The control petri dish which was in the shaded area for the entire period of time ALWAYS displayed growth. However, the longer a petri dish was exposed to the sunlight shining through the closed windows, the less growth they had. At some point, again, i must apologize, i've forgotten the exact point, in terms of minutes of exposuret to the sunlight, at which no visible growth occured, but there were always those that showed no growth that had been exposed longer.

Oh, i should add also that besides the closed glass windows, the plastic petri dishes had their tops on them too!!

UV (not sure what "band", A, B, or C, but maybe one of the Docs who participate in these Forums will be kind enough to Post and tell us) is thought to cause cataracts later in life. So, I don't stare at my container when I use a UV-C purifier. Of course, we probably get a lot more UV from the sunlight – hence, the need for a good pair of sunglasses.

Hi pj

> SODIS does work – it is generally recommended that SODIS be allowed six hours to perform its disinfecting work on non-turbid water. Is it UV-A, UV-B, or UV-C that is doing the work.

From Wikipedia (faster than typing myself!):
SODIS:
Sunlight is treating the contaminated water through three synergistic radiation mechanisms.
UV-A (wavelength 320-400nm) which react with oxygen dissolved in the water produces highly reactive forms of oxygen (oxygen free radicals and hydrogen peroxides) in the water. These reactive forms of oxygen kill the microorganisms.
UV-A also interferes with the reproduction cycle of bacteria by damaging their DNA
Infrared heating the water. If the water temperatures raises above 50°C, the disinfection process is three times faster.
The combined effect of all three mechanisms is greater than that of each individual components.

The SteriPEN Adventurer uses UV-C to kill the bugs. Much shorter wavelength, more energetic photons.

Roger,

Many thanks. UV-A…this answers a lot of questions and explains a lot of things. I can now accept what the Mfrs claim, viz. that UV-C doesn't escape. UV-A is probably the wavelength band that was also involved in producing no growth in that simple Microbiology lab demonstration.

BTW, the nobel prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman claims that he was the only human to get a unobscurred view of the first nuclear detonation. While others used *VERY* dark goggles to view (for fear of the large amounts of UV light produced by the bomb), Feynman viewed only through the glass window of an US Army jeep, since as he explained it, he knew that the window would stop the UV light from damaging his eyes. I've never read that he developed cataracts, though he only lived to be about 70yrs of age, IIRC. I guess the UV produced must have been mainly in the shorter UV-C wavelengths??? I should have remembered Feynman's account of the incident, and incorporated it into my thinking on this subject. I guess the viewing distance was also a factor (inverse square principle of radiating energy) for any amounts of UV-A and UV-B produced.

"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." – Richard Feynman [this quote seems to have some application to this particular subject and my lack of proper understanding on which band of UV comes into play both in SODIS and the little demonstration in Micro lab.]

Roger, if you've never read Feynman's little autobiography "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" [subtitled "The Adventures of a Curious Character"], you should borrow a copy from the local library (even my little town's library had it). It's a great little read which, yrs ago, I couldn't put down until late at night when i finished it. I've read it twice, i enjoyed it so much.

I found this note in SteriPEN's FAQs:

"While very few materials are transparent to UV-C, there are a small number of uncommon materials that are. These include optical grade quartz (the SteriPEN™ lamp material) and a few fluoropolymers in the Teflon family – both unlikely materials to be used for drinking containers."

Interestingly, they also note the air/water interface is an effective UV reflector.

If all that weren't comfort enough, we also have the inverse square law working in our favor. It would probably take a lot of effort to receive eye damage from one of the UV treatment gizmos. (Staring at the bare tube, perhaps?)

Surefire brand = 12 for $20.00

http://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=1&catalogId=1&langId=-1&categoryId=44156&sc1=Search&feat=sr

Regarding the LLBean deal . It is correct. Surefire 123A 10 year shelf life . 12 for $20. I bouight two boxes in the store yesterday. The salesman says they sell out very quickly, as a single battery ( while a named brand ) sells for $9 each! They are not in the Freeport, ME Main store, but in the Hunting and Fishing Store. As always , if you are not happy, bring the rest of them back with the slip and satisfaction guaranteed!
Tom Jamrog

pj and Roger — Thanks!!

Here are a couple of other sources for cheap batteries in case you don't have access to LL Bean

Surefire 12 for $21
http://www.brightguy.com/products/3V_Lithium_Battery_(12_Pack,_SureFire).php

and with toooo many other choices

http://www.batterystation.com/cr123a.htm

Roger Caffin writes: "But more importantly the presence of a small amount of dirt or organic matter in the water will not greatly affect the operation of UV light." However, Natick labs gave a bad review of the steripen because it doesn't work in turbid water:

http://usachppm.apgea.army.mil/WPD/WPDSHARE/139/AddInfo_HydroPhotonSteriPEN.pdf

I have said this before, but I will reiterate. The primary threats to hikers from water are (a) poisonous chemicals, such as AS (the spell checker says that the metal with this chemical symbol is profanity) or the toxins released by algae blooms (b) helminthic parasites. A healthy adult with a normal immune system will suffer no more than minor distress from the protozoa or virus found in North America or Europe. Some type of of bacteria from in North America and Europe, such as particularly nasty s trains of e.coli might kill a child, but they are unlikely to kill an adult. All viruses, bacteria and protozoa found in North America and Europe can be shaken out of the body with relative ease and pose no long term danger to a healthy adult.

Chemicals can kill, but these are a minor consideration other than in the desert.

Helminthes, on the other hand, are a real danger. Anywhere there are canines (dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes) there is the potential for hydatid cysts from echinococcus granulosus tapeworm. This can cause very severe illnesses. Currently, this tapeworm is common in all arctic regions (Alaska, Canada, Siberia) where it cycles between wolves and caribou/deer and similar prey. This tapeworm is also very common in the Alps, where it is carried by a combination of foxes and small mammals such as mice and voles. This tapeworm is/was very common in many sheep-rearing areas, such as Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, the entire Mediterranean area, Patagonia, where it is carried by a combination of dogs and sheep. The cycle is completed when dogs are allowed to eat the entrails of slaughtered sheep. This is not done in the United States or most of Northern Europe, and hence the disease is not common there. But there is nothing that says these worms couldn't be introduced and then be perpetuated by coyotes/wolves eating raw sheep. Supposedly these worms have been eradicated recently in New Zealand by a long campaign of veterinary care of the sheep.

Anyway, if you are hiking in any part of the world where there are canines, meaning all of North America and Europe, there is the potential for very dangerous helminthes in the water. Perhaps not now, but these worms could easily be introduced accidentally, such as by wolves migrating down from the Arctic into temperate North America.

Hydatid cysts are a major health problem in the poor sheep-rearing countries of the world, such as Turkey. The cycle is as follows. Unvaccinated sheep-dogs are carriers of the worms, the worm eggs come out in the dogs intestinal output (I tried to use the technical word, but the spell checker says this is profanity), little children playing around the dogs get the eggs in their mouths, the eggs hatch and burrow into the body where they form cysts. These cysts grow slowly and after a dealy of about twenty to thirty years, the person has major health problems. Treatment is quite risky, especially if the cyst is in the brain or heart.

I have been unable to find information as to the probability of ingesting worm eggs in water. It is certainly possible and the National Park Service in the Lake Superior area warns about these worms. But perhaps this is just cover-your-ass behavior on their part. I suspect the likelihood is much greater than commonly thought, and the reason we don't hear more about these worms is that there simply aren't that many people in the backcountry and the damage take 20-30 years to develop and it takes a trained physician to even recognize that the damage is due to worm and not something else. In Turkey, where hydatid cysts are common, physicians knows to suspect worms when someone in their 30's shows up with all sorts of strange symtoms. I'm not sure if doctors elsewhere are so informed.

Worm eggs are ultra-tough. Ultraviolet light has no effect on them and neither do chlorine, chlorine-dioxide or iodine. The only way to avoid ingesting worm eggs is to filter the water. Luckily, the worm eggs are fairly large, like 15 microns and up, so anything which screens for giardia will also screen worm eggs.

There's tons of information on the internet about worms, but very little about the probability of encountering such worms in places like Sierras or Appalachians. However, there are wolves, foxes and/or coyotes in these places, and thus there is the potential for a problem.

Echinoccous granulosus is just one type of helminthic parasite, but probably the biggest risk for backpackers. There are many other helminthes, all of which produce eggs which are fairly large but immune to UV and chemical treatment.

Frank said, "I'm not sure if doctors elsewhere are so informed."

Oh ye of little faith. I think most docs in the USA will diagnose it in short time by serology or ultrasound and biopsy if needed. I've had only one case, but it was already suspected by the neurosurgeon and radiologist before the biopsy ever came to me. They were right.

I'd say the probability of ingesting worm eggs in the USA is low. Heeding the warnings at Isle Royale NP would be smart. The primary threat to hikers is a motor vehicle accident on the way to the trailhead.

While echinococcosis can cause a lot of grief, most of the cysts (hydatid cysts)are solitary, occur in the liver and most are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis.

Oh great John, that's consoling,…."While E'..can cause a lot of grief, most of the cysts are solitary, occur in the liver, and are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis."

Yeah, and then what? I had severe liver pains the past few months and sure enough after an MRI of my liver they found a cyst in there; but did nothing to treat me after telling me so?!?

Let me know which doctor(s) are 'on their game' because the one treating me apparently cut this class in med school….

Frank wrote:
>Roger Caffin writes: "But more importantly the presence of a small amount of dirt or organic matter in the water will not greatly affect the operation of UV light." However, Natick labs gave a bad review of the steripen because it doesn't work in turbid water:

Well, yes, but I think Natick and I are talking about seriously different levels of contaminant!

The first problem with 'turbid water' is that the suspended matter, either organic or clay, will absorb a lot of any oxidant, rendering chemical treatment doubtful, and secondly any filter used will quickly block. If you HAVE to use such water, I suspect that boiling may be your only solution.

I have drunk stinking stagnant water once, when the creeks were all dry and the only water was underground in a pig-wallow in the creek-bed. It tasted awful!*! We survived.

Helminthes – yeah, bad stuff.

I hear ya Gene. Most liver cysts are not parasitic and are incidental (and benign) findings while investigating other patient complaints.

More on liver cysts…offtopic I realize.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2716.htm

PJ has already posted my fav. links, but here are some more. I've ordered from all of these, not just browsed.

1. http://www.eneloop.info/whatseneloop.html
I believe these are the new 2nd generation NiMH that don't have the big hidden 'wort' of 1st gen. namely, terrible self discharge. Ray o – vac is marketing similar already under the trendy "Hybrid" name. The last thing you need is to hang on the hilltop to see a great sunset on your informal day hike, only to dig out your flashlight and get 2 minutes out of it. (of course, the spare NiMH's in your pack will get you a total of 4 minutes)

2. For HiMH, the best deal and REALLY good charger I've found is the La Crosse 900 (http://www.thomasdistributing.com/la_crosse_bc 900_battery_charger.php) Besides the all important ability to charge batteries singly, it will measure the capacity & also has a rejuvenate mode.

3. Most LED lights will work with rechargable lithiums, but some unregulated lights may not.Tenergy makes a volt limited 3v rechargable lithium which should be safe in most applications. http://www.batteryjunction.com/licyba181417.html

4. I own a bunch of 123's but really favor rechargables whenever possible due to savings, predictability when topped off, and most important, the environment.

How do you treat the threads of the container? They get untreated water on them when you dip the container in the water source. With AquaMira, after you add the oxidant, you pour some treated water into the cap and over the threads. How can you treat the threads with the AquaStar? This seems like a pretty big hole in this treatment method to me.

> How can you treat the threads with the AquaStar?

I pour sterilized water over the threads the same way and hope that washes the nasties off. If I'm going to drink from the container, I wipe the threads with a bandanna (which is probably just as contaminated…). I figure there aren't enough nasties left on the threads after that to cause a problem.

I probably would not be comfortable doing this.

One way would be to have a seperate cup used to scoop the water from the source and then carefully pour it into the container where treatment is going to take place. Use of the pre-filter would basically do this but it looks like it only fits on a Nalgene bottle (heavy) so I would have to think more about this. Still, keeping untreated water off the lid/threads in the first place seems like a potentially sound strategy.

Having never even seen the device in question, I feel fully qualified to add my review ;) and completely agree that this would make me nervous. The point of washing with untreated water is that this spillover has the chemicals in it and will this treat the threads. UV treated water has no such ability. But your solution seems logical though possibly difficult.

interesting.

I emailed the manufacturer about this. Here was their response:

Hi there Jim! Believe it or not what we tell people is to simply wipe off the threads of the container you are using. This gets rid of enough of the bad stuff to keep you safe. The other option is to us our prefilter which actually protects the threads. You can see the prefilter and how its used on our website (www.steripen.com).

…it is what it is. I would love someone that actually knows what they are talking about to chime in on this. I am not convinced.

Note: I don't own nor have ever used the Steripen. I am not commenting on the device itself but rather on the process for treating water with UV treatment in general.

Hi Jim,
I am Miles Maiden – Inventor of SteriPEN and CEO of Hydro-Photon (the company that makes SteriPEN).

I wanted to add a little to the above quoted response from someone else here at Hydro-Photon. It is true that we do suggest drying the bottle threads with a cloth to remove contaminated droplets of water. While this method certainly does not "sterilize" the threads, it does greatly reduce the exposure to waterborne contaminants.

Consider this – a 1 microliter droplet of water is very easy to see. If you remove all visible water from your bottle threads then you might reasonably expect that the water remaining on the threads is less than one microliter.

Now a microliter is 1 milionth of a liter – so, if you were to take a liter of stream water, and treat it with the steriPEN you could expect to have destroyed in excess of 99.9999% of the bacteria present. And you could consider this the same as destroying all the bacteria in 999,999 microliters of that liter – with the 1 remaining microliter not purified.

Following this line of thinking, lets say you treat the water with the SteriPEN and then neglect to dry off 5 microliters of droplets on the threads. In this case the effective SteriPEN treatment would indeed have been reduced but it is worth noting that the reduction would be from +99.9999% to about 99.9994%.

Finally, one’s immune system is bombarded with low-level exposure to microorganisms all the time – through what we eat, drink, breath and otherwise absorb. And generally, if our immune systems are relatively intact, we do not get sick from this. Normally, it is the higher concentrations of microbes, which can overwhelm the immune system and cause illness. It is for this reason, for example, that the US EPA protocol for microbiological water purifiers does not require complete sterilization but rather calls for a reduction in the percentage of microbes present in the purified. For bacteria the EPA calls for 99.9999% reduction.

The above comments are certainly not intended as medical advice for anyone, my intent was just to give a little more perspective about the levels of contamination we are discussing.

Best regards,
Miles

Haha, fair enough! Well, I ordered one of the things just for kicks so if I get sick you guys will be hearing from me! :)

I am a firm believer of not criticizing gear until I personally have put my money on the table and taken it into the field. So I am looking forward to playing with the SteriPEN.

Thanks, Miles. Again, I want to make sure it's clear I wasn't commenting on the product but on the process of using UV to treat water. I applaud ANY vendor that is out there investing money and making innovative products for this market. I also appreciate you hanging out on this forum and speaking up in support of your product and answering questions honestly and without a lot of marketing spin.

Very good point. I have a video showing a former Air Force survival instructer demonstrating the Steripen, and she points out that only the water inside the bottle becomes sterile. Her only comment was, "Wipe off the lid and the threads." [Wipe it off with what, Aqua Mira?] Or, I suppose we should follow Roger: "So using the SteriPEN has meant I have had to change how I treat our drinking water: now I do it in our cooking pot, with continuous stirring. I can pour the treated water into a bottle later. Mind you, since the lamp radiates out sideways rather than downwards the shape of the pot is just right for the light distribution from the lamp. I don't think trying to treat water in a tall thin bottle is a good idea anyhow as the bottom region would not get much light."

How about wiping off the threads with an alcohol pad after drying with a cloth?

PJ,

Thanks for your reply, and taking the time to look over the online data on this little guy. I hike mostly in the Shenandoah, and water is so prevalent that a single one liter container is all I carry. And I only fill it all the way when I can see a stretch of 'dry' ahead in my walking.

I just wondered if it was really working, honestly, or if I was just lucky. Seems like a couple thousand of these could have been airlifted into New Orleans a while back and helped lots of folks out.

Anyhow, thanks again. Safe trekking to you.
Jim

>>My rule of thumb on batteries is that in cold weather, or for any destintion where the water's bound to be cold (say, <45 F) to use only name-brand batteries (e.g., Energizer, Sanyo, Duracell). I've not surveyed all the generic brands out there, but have been disappointed by the cold performance of those I've used.

Rick, I just got back from an overnighter at RMNP and your advice saved the day. Before leaving for my trip, I picked up a pair of Duracell CR123s as spares. I don't know how cold the water was, but I found it in a snow and ice covered stream. The batteries supplied with the Steripen Adventurer couldn't even get through one cycle. The Duracells had no problem getting through a number of cycles. So thanks for the tip.