- Mar 8, 2018 at 3:44 am #3523040
Just saw this on the web. Something akin to a coffee filter could possibly suffice for an entire backpacking trip. I’m certainly intrigued.Mar 8, 2018 at 3:46 am #3523041Mar 8, 2018 at 3:48 am #3523042
Ken T.BPL Member
Welcome backMar 8, 2018 at 3:51 am #3523044
Thanks. I lurk now and then.
According to one website, they were up for sale on amazon for $6.99, but now unavailable.Mar 8, 2018 at 5:28 am #3523064
Bruce TolleyBPL Member
@btolleyLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
The NSF company link just states certification for the removal of lead and arsenic. So it does not look like this filter would remove bacteria or cysts despite the headline in the Fast Company blurb,Mar 8, 2018 at 12:31 pm #3523090
Ken LarsonBPL Member
@kenlarsonLocale: Western Michigan
– “Immobilizes arsenic; lead, mercury and other heavy metals; radioactive elements; bacteria and viruses.”Mar 8, 2018 at 12:59 pm #3523093
James MarcoBPL Member
@jamesdmarcoLocale: Finger Lakes
Lead, aresenic, and other minerals (all are toxic in high doses) are naturally found in in everything. Using simple replacement can cause these to be removed to some degree. It will also capture some bacteria, cysts, worm eggs, etc in your water. BUT, will it make it “safe” to drink???????????
This is a scam. there is no evidence that anything these things do will produce drinkable water from highly contaminated mine run-off. Nor trap enough bacteria to prevent diseases. Nor trap enough viruses to prevent an infection. Nor trap enough worm eggs to prevent a tape worm. Even the picture shows a filter without any means of collecting the output. No mention of the absolute pore size. No mention of testing on biota and their toxins. Someone is trying to make money off pseudo-science and fancy sounding words. And, if you use these as your only filter, it could make you sick depending on your input water and amount consumed. There are spots you can drink water right from the ground. There are spots you cannot. This filter will not change that.Mar 8, 2018 at 1:47 pm #3523096
James, as with all new technology and methods, a cautious wait-and-see approach is often warranted, as is the case here.
However, assuming the claims aren’t flat out lies, this membrane does have an NSF 42 and 53 certification and has a pore size of 40-60 nanometers, or 0.06 microns (if I did the conversion correctly).Mar 12, 2018 at 3:19 am #3523906
Eric BlumensaadtBPL Member
@danepackerLocale: Mojave Desert
I’d use this filter before I used my Katadyn chlorine dioxide tablets or Steripen but would not trust it by itself.Mar 12, 2018 at 8:32 am #3523951
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Do they have a certification from an independent (university) test lab, to EPA Standards, for the removal of viruses, bacteria and protozoa?
I see no sign of this.
Otherwise it looks like some sort of activated charcoal embedded in paper. That’s fine, but hardly of much use to us.
CheersMar 12, 2018 at 6:42 pm #3524024
The only certification I see is the NSF 42/53. Maybe I’ll email them.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.