Steripen Quantum UV Water Treatment System — Roger Caffin

[Jerry Adams]

$15 to $20

$49 to $69

That’s within a factor of 3

Quantity price will be less.  Negotiating a price could be lower, I just asked them for an approximate price.

Steripen could charge more for an LED version

We may still have to wait for more price drops but we’re getting close

[Jerry Adams]

I assume you can only put 4 liters in that bag, and if there’s less than 4 liters it won’t be full.

[Brad C]

I have a Steripen Ultra. If they do indeed sell the bags separately, I wonder if older pen models like the ultra will be compatible. Size wise there must be no problem because the funnel pictured is just the plain old universal pre-filter that I already have. Wattage might be the key difference, I guess.

Maybe two x 1L treatment cycles with an Ultra could do it? It’d still save a lot of time.

[Roger Caffin]

We may still have to wait for more price drops but we’re getting close
The price will drop as the time passes. Yeah – getting closer.

Cheers

[James Marco]

Brad, yeah, all the UV lights are the same except the Aqua model according to this: https://www.steripen.com/compare/
The only difference is the aluminum coating on the inside of the bag and the timing unit in the lamp, some eprom or eeprom designed software I would guess, but I never took one apart.

Aluminum was doubtlessly chosen for it’s fairly high reflectivity of the UV-C spectrum (200-280nm.) Silver and gold perform poorly in this range with Silver being close 400nm before we start approaching the 90+% that aluminum will reflect. Note that there are several other possibilities.

Anyway, we can see that on the first reflection, we would get about 3/4 of the UV reflected back as a rough approximation after absorption by any biota, etc in the water. But it would continue to reflect as long as it is not otherwise absorbed. I’ll skip the rest of the numbers…

Anyway, what does this mean? we see that 150sec for 4 liters can change to ~20sec for a half liter bottle instead of the more common 43-45sec. This would yield about half the power consumption, or, doubling the life of the batteries (not counting the trickle current on the switch.)

The downside of this is the amount of material in the water. Some materials will absorb more than others. For example highly tannic water (“black” water) needs to be treated twice anyway, but may require a third treatment to do 4L under the modified timing scheme. Note the graph in the following:https://www.steripen.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/02ac755595468c5da0c8d224bef3c2db/misc/stream_test.pdf
and
https://www.steripen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Testing-of-the-SteriPEN-Quantum-FitsAll-Filter-RapidUV-Vessel.pdf
(Actually, three 120sec doses were used, not the 150 sec doses installed on the new pen.)

Anyway, there is an increasingly high rate of absorption of UV-C the dirtier the water gets, doped with the same number of microbes. Instead of two treatments (the more or less standard) for dirty water, plan on three to achieve the same level of protection. But this is not normal for most users. Clear water, or generally clear, still pass enough UV-C to meet the protection requirements with one dose.

[Geoff Caplan]

Martin – I’ve personally seen foxes in the Western Alps at over 1500 meters, so I guess there is a risk on most Alpine walks.

More generally, I’m genuinely unclear about the appeal of the Steripen.

I’ve used a Seychelle/TravelTap filter for years, and it’s proved 100% reliable. Acceptable weight. Tested by many agencies to remove nasties down to the virus level, No need for backflushing and never clogs (provided you’re sensible). Huge capacity. Decent flow. No pumping. No moving parts to fail. Absolutely no faff – just fill and go.

For solo use, the filter seems ideal. And frankly, even in a small party I’d prefer to carry my own water system in case we have to split up for some reason.

The Steripen seems to have many more points of failure, with batteries, circuit boards and emitters. Less effective with cloudy water. You have to stop and run the thing before you can drink. Doesn’t work for tapeworm eggs. Needs this rather heavy and fragile-looking dedicated reservoir to work efficiently for larger volumes,  where a filter would just use a gravity feed (though this would admittedly be much slower).

What am I missing? Why would anyone choose this high-tech device over my simple and reliable filter?

[Matthew / BPL]

Geoff, I’m not familiar with that filter and having trouble locating a TravelTap model although I see lots of filters by Seychelle. Can you link to the model you are talking about?

Although I’ve never chosen to use a Steripen I can see their appeal in some locations, like the Sierra Nevada. I know that many people don’t treat their water there (I do) but the water is regularly available and quite clear. I can see the appeal of dipping my bottle into a stream, zapping for 60 or 90 seconds and continuing to walk. This would be quicker than filtering with a Sawyer or BeFree and doesn’t require the lag time required for chemical treatment. That said, I haven’t gone with this solution due to the failure modes you have mentioned and I’d definitely not be interested in a Steripen here in a Arizona where livestock and sediment are regularly encountered.

[jscott]

My Steripen has never failed. So yeah, in clear water situations like the West coast of the States, it’s certainly a lot easier and arguably more reliable than a filter (no clogging)..

Is a filter more effective in livestock areas? I honestly don’t know. By which I mean, I really don’t know!

[Roger Caffin]

Is a filter more effective in livestock areas?
No.
The Steripen WILL deal with all bugs and wogs. But it will not remove agricultural (or mining) chemicals – but neither will most filters. Most filters cannot deal with viruses the way the Steripen can, and the filters can block up.

Cheers

[Jerry Adams]

I got a Steripen and the batteries died a couple times so I returned it and got a Sawyer Squeeze which has worked flawlessly.

But, I learned Steripen would probably work reliably if you don’t use rechargeable batteries, and remove the batteries between uses, and carry a spare set even if the batteries were only used once.

[Roger Caffin]

Steripen would probably work reliably if you don’t use rechargeable batteries, and remove the batteries between uses,
Just so.
I use AA Lithiums, and I store the units with an isolator in place. The isolator is no more than a little bit of stiff plastic covering one end of the cell. That way the lithiums last for many years.

Cheers

[James Marco]

I have lost one steripen, near the end of it’s life, I had one fail after I cracked a bottle and spilled a large amount of DEET on it, but most filters would have been contaminated beyond use anyway. The one I have now is nearing the end of it’s useful life…ie, the bulb will soon go bad after 8000 cycles. Even the one I spilled DEET on was wiped off and used for two days before I returned home…it eventually died during testing.
The old MuV worked well, but was a pain to constantly be recharging it once the internal rechargeable battery went bad. But, my years of using a UV treatment device, I have never had one fail in the field. I know it happens and I carry two small bottles of AM drops, just in case…about an ounce and a quarter. lately, I have been using 1L pills, though.

The advantages are obvious. 1) No wait time. 2) No clogging. 3) No hoses/valves or connectors. I only carry 1 liter in two 500ml water bottles. Usually one is empty or nearly so, by the time I leave a watering hole, so this is usually only about a pound and a half. I may camel up on one bottle if it is hot. This is good for about 2 hours hiking time or, if I need to hike thirsty, up to four with no health issues. I often camel up at the next hole, though. Drinking 500ml right away, refilling/treating it, drinking the second bottle, while I treat the first one again, then refill/treat the second bottle again. Often within 5-10 minutes. In camp, I often treat a bottle to pour into the pot for cooking, since I only need warmed up water in the morning (“Marco’s Mud” & mocha.) Saves a bit of fuel and time.

[James Marco]

I usually flip one battery over in the Adventurer. No possibility for current flow. With the Classic, you flip the two cells either + or -, not one of each. Batteries usually last about two weeks in the adventurer. Close enough to carry a spare set. The Classic gets about double that, but it was way too heavy…gave it away.

[Geoff Caplan]

@matthew k – the TravelTap is simply the UK branding for the Seychelle: http://drinksafe-systems.co.uk/products.php. For hiking, the bottle and inline filters are the most useful:

Other posters are suggesting that the advantages of the Steripen are 1) that it deals with viruses and 2) that it doesn’t clog.

With viruses, I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about filters. Viable viruses don’t really travel solo – they are almost always bound to something larger. So although a virus is theoretically smaller than the filter matrix, in practice they are filtered out. I have discussed this at length with the UK importer of the Seychelle, who is familiar with the science. He initiated a very comprehensive test of the Seychelle by the British Army, and it dealt fine with viruses. He says that any filter with a similarly small matrix would be equally effective.

As for clogging, most people’s perception of filters seems to be shaped by the Sawyer, which does seem prone to clogging and needs regular backflushing. The TravelTap uses a different type of filter and doesn’t need backflushing. I’ve read dozens of reviews and no-one has mentioned clogging. I’ve used it for hundreds of days with all qualities of water and it’s never clogged. If the water has a lot of particulate I would pre-filter it though my folded buffr, but that’s rarely required.

On the other hand, all this discussion of keeping the batteries charged and healthy with the Steripen is a bit of a red flag for me. I walk every day and the TravelTap simply lives in my pack in the boot of my car – totally maintenance free. For me, the less I have to worry about the better.

[Martin Farrent]

@geoffcaplan

Hi Geoff,

Additionally, I believe most viruses that can harm human beings are found close to human settlements… i.e. more of a bother for us Europeans and a big problem in parts of Asia, but less of a snag for Americans and Australians.

But I checked out the Seychelle site, and it made me a bit suspicious. Claiming that carbon can do more than filter out bad tastes at such short contact times contradicts everything I have read on that topic to date – both in outdoor-specific and in other contexts. For instance, if you add medication to an aquarium and later wish to remove the chemicals, you filter through charcoal for a couple of days.

Best,

Martin

[Roger Caffin]

With viruses, I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about filters. Viable viruses don’t really travel solo – they are almost always bound to something larger. So although a virus is theoretically smaller than the filter matrix, in practice they are filtered out.
I think Katadyn were pushing that theory 20 years ago. I don’t think anyone really took it seriously back then either. To be sure, a filter might remove SOME of the viruses – maybe 75%. But an EPA-rated filter has to remove 99.99% of the viruses (or is it five 9s?) Do you feel lucky?

If filters are that good, why has Katadyn bought Steripen?

Cheers

[Jerry Adams]

If Steripens were so good, they’d have bought Katadyn : )

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Jerry

Katadyn are a multi-national company based in Switzerland. They own 9 other brands apart from Steripen. I think their market capitalisation might be orders of magnitude greater than that Steripen.

Cheers

[Geoff Caplan]

@Roger & Martin

The removal of chemical contaminants has been tested by a number of labs and is pretty impressive. Some of the tests simulated 1600 litres of use, so it clearly lasts for some time Having said that, I would still avoid sourcing water from under an old mine or below intensive agriculture. Not much of a constraint in real life. http://www.drinksafe-systems.co.uk/usa-test-results.pdf

As for viruses I’ll double check with the distributor (the website is annoyingly vague), but my memory is that at least 3 UK agencies have tested for virus removal with good results, and others overseas. Again, I do carry some tabs and if I was forced to drink something particularly foul I’d probably use them. But I’ve drunk a lot of water in heavily dung-contaminated alpine meadows with no ill effects, and I know I’m not alone. I’ll report back if I find out that I’ve misunderstood something…

[Martin Farrent]

I would imagine the danger in dung-contaminated meadows would be from germs larger than viruses, Geoff… and certainly not from chemicals if you are above any wheat fields in the valleys.

I’m not dissing filters. I’m merely a) wondering about their sufficiency against chemical pollutants, and b) advocating the additional use of a Steripen or tablets if viruses are your concern. It’s pretty easy to nuke anything within 30 minutes (filter + tabs) or much less (filter + Steripen). Again: except for chemicals, to my knowledge. But where you have cause to suspect chemical pollutants, you are usually fairly close to tap water anyway.

My own policy is to filter and then wait for the tablets to do their work against viruses (just in case). No need to give them overtime, as all the larger bugs have been caught by the filter anyway. A Steripen would be just as good as the tablets – just heavier.

[Barry P]

“What am I missing? Why would anyone choose this high-tech device over my simple and reliable filter?”

I’m a little cautious with filters. I need some questions answered:

1. How heavy is it? (dry weight and empty bottle wet weight)
2. How do you know if it broke (from freezing or dropping)? There only a couple of companies that have good methods for determining this at home (and maybe in the field). The blow test is ridiculous to try to find 20µm holes.
3. Where’s the data? I don’t trust my life with any filter until I see independent lab data.
4. How fast does it filter?

Some other observations:

1. It appears the standard steripen is faster than a Seychelle.
2. To claim the Seychelle doesn’t clog is pressing it. In fact Seychelle claims that’s how you can tell when to replace the filter (slow reduction in flow).
3. It appears only two Seychelle filters filter viruses; https://www.seychelle.com/types-of-water-filters. Which one is yours? I don’t care for the iodine version for health reasons.
4. The steripen doesn’t need extra caution in freezing weather.
5. The steripen leaves more mountain minerals in the water. This is why I love drinking Rocky Mountain water.
6. There are more filter failure reports (in general) than steripen failure reports (caveat: this is my observation on the trail); mechanical failures are more common than electrical failures. I see this in my work too. Either way, chlorine dioxide tablets are a good backup.

Back in Illinois, I had too much agricultural runoff in the streams. And the lakes were brown. So I would use my First Need backpacking. It was great turning brown water clear.

So Steripen or Filter? It depends.

-Barry

-The mountains were made for Tevas

[James Marco]

Well, filters work well. Nothing wrong with them. Hundreds of hikers use it for every person that uses the Steripen. Here in the ADK’s, mostly you can just drink the water. In my time out I have helped many hikers with clean water rather than encourage this practice, however. Plugged or slow flows, gravity systems that are a a mass of complexity, split water bags, late season hard frosts rendering their filters useless as they hang from a tree, parched & hot hikes who used up all the water they carried before hitting a water hole and really needed to drink some while they recovered/waited for drops to work…these are some of the problems I have helped out with. Yes, a lot of this depends on so-called technology. Well, simply put, I rely on technology every day. So the fact of a Steripen being a technological device is no problem for me.

For backup water, I carry ten 1L tablets, I forget who makes them. In most places, I can hike out in a couple days. Batteries cease to be a problem when I can hike out in three days or less to get more, iff I get a bad set or short them out somehow or break my Steripen…weirder things have happened. At the end of a year I toss them and get more. Usually, the expiration date has past before I ever need to use them.

Anyway, there are chemical treatments, UV treatments, heat/boiling water, and filters. You should ALWAYS carry two methods. I find the Steripen to be as light as any, lighter when you figure in water weight. I do not carry much water. In a desert or up a dry mountain, I would take my filter and at least a full two liter bottle. Hiking most areas in the ADK’s, I just use the Steripen as my primary. But, any of these methods will work. You just need to calculate the lightest weight for your expected conditions and do it. There is no “best” way.

[Jerry Adams]

I don’t think a backup is needed

Usually the water is clean enough and doesn’t need treatment.

If I never treated the water, I’d probably eventually get unlucky and get sick.

But if I just drank untreated water in the rare occasion my filter broke, it would be unlikely that would be the time I was unlucky enough to get sick.  The chance of two rare events on the same trip is negligible.

Especially because my filter has never broke.

My Steripen broke twice, that is the batteries died, although now I know how to avoid that.

Of course taking some pills as backup doesn’t weigh much.  I assume they have a finite lifetime so they have to be replaced.  I just hate having something that I never use that I have to replace occasionally.

[Mark Fowler]

Jerry – remember Murphy’s Law.  The chances of drinking contaminated water soar dramatically if your purification system fails.  Taking a few backup pills will help redress this.

[Martin Farrent]

Let’s initially say you want the maximum safetly available today. Actually, I think it’s pretty easy to establish some respective general principles if you ignore a few of the less credible (imo) manufacturer claims:

1) No system covers all threats.

2) But a filter plus a solution for viruses covers everything except (imo) chemical pollutants. Meaning: tape worm eggs down to bacteria get caught in the filter, and viruses get killed separately by a Steripen or tabs/drops.

3) The Steripen is significantly faster than tabs for viruses, but also far heavier and more likely to fail.

4)  Avoid the source entirely if you suspect chemical pollutants.

So in a group, it’s a bit of a no-brainer – take a filter, a Steripen and some backup tabs. Solo? Take a filter and tabs… then add a Steripen if you want to speed things up (and there are certainly times when you will appreciate that factor).

(The game changer with regard to chemical pollutants would be Geoff’s Seychelle system – if we can really trust the claims. On the one hand, it’s usually fairly easy to figure out which sources could be polluted – and they often coincide with the vicinity of human settlement (so you could probably acquire tap water fairly easily). On the other hand, that rule isn’t foolproof – so I, for one, would swap my Sawyer for Geoff’s filter if the claims could be further substantiated.)

Next step? Start to eliminate options to lighten your pack. You need to base this on the threats that are actually likely during your trip. Is it worth it? That’s up to you. But here are some considerations:

1) Steripens need clearish water, as do tabs. Neither cater for tapeworm eggs (yes, I know… my personal ‘favourite’).

2) Tabs are much slower than Steripens, especially if the water isn’t filtered – up to four hours to catch all protozoa (as opposed to 30 mins if they only need to deal with viruses).

3) Viruses may or may not be your smallest worry, depending on your region.

4) As a backup system, tabs weight almost nothing.

5) Filters can clog, and Steripens can fail.

[Author]

Posts