Product Performance Claims
Product Performance Claims
Performance Claims
1. Effectively removes chlorine.
2. Effectively removes chloramine.
3. Improves taste, odour, and clarity of water.
4. Improves taste of beverages made with filtered water.
5. Effectively removes more than 140 organic contaminants from water, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and trihalomethanes.
6. Effectively removes more than 13 disinfection by-products.
7. Effectively removes more than 30 pesticides and pesticide by-products.
8. Effectively removes vinyl chloride.
9. Effectively removes Microcystin LR, the most common algae toxin.
10. Effectively removes particulates down to 0.2 microns, including asbestos, sediment, dirt, and scale.
11. Effectively removes lead in drinking water.
12. Effectively removes mercury in drinking water.
13. Effectively removes radon and radon decay products in drinking water.
14. Effectively removes waterborne parasites larger than 3 to 4 microns.
15. Does not remove beneficial minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, and fluoride.
16. Effectively removes MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether).
17. Ultraviolet light destroys >99.99% of waterborne disease causing bacteria and viruses in drinking water.
18. Ultraviolet light destroys Cryptosporidium.
19. The carbon filter will treat drinking and cooking water for 5,000 litres (1,320 gallons) or one year, whichever comes first, enough to meet the needs of a family of 6.
20. Convenient, replaceable carbon/UV cartridge.
21. Attaches to most standard kitchen water faucets.
22. Uses exclusive US-patented technology. U.S. patents 4,753,728; 4,859,386; 5,017,318; 6,368,504; 5,573,666; 5,529,689; 6,436,299. Additional U.S. and International patents granted or pending.
Please note: Contaminants or other substances referenced in this section are not necessarily in your drinking water. When the filter indicator signals end of life, the cartridge must be changed to ensure optimal performance.
Claim 1: Effectively removes chlorine
Most municipal water supplies are treated with chlorine to kill pathogenic organisms, consequently preventing the spread of waterborne diseases. Many people object to the taste of the chlorine.
Two units were tested for chlorine reduction by the NSF under NSF/ANSI Standard 42, “Drinking Water Treatment Units, Aesthetic Effects.” The units were tested to 100% of rated capacity 5000 litres, or 1,320 gallons of water. The water flow was cycled 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off at a line pressure of 410 kPa, or 60 psi. The chlorine reduction criteria established by NSFI is an influent concentration of 2.0 ppm. Free chlorine must be reduced by a minimum of 75%. The Water Treatment System removed more than 98% of the chlorine.
Claim 2: Effectively removes chloramine
While many municipalities add chlorine to the water supply to prevent the spread of waterborne disease organisms, an alternate disinfection material, chloramine, is becoming commonly used as well. As with chlorine, chloramine adds taste and odour components to the drinking water that are often considered undesirable. The system was tested in duplicate for chloramine reduction by NSF under standard 42, “Drinking Water Treatment Units, Aesthetic Effects.” The units were tested to 5,000 litres (1,320 gallons), the rated life of the filter as outline in the protocol. The protocol requires water to be contaminated with chloramine as monochloramine at a concentration of 3 ppm and the system being tested must reduce these levels to less than 0.51 ppm. The system reduced 2.9 ppm influent concentrations of monochloramines with a maximum effluent concentration of 0.33 ppm.
Claim 3: Improves taste, odour, and clarity of water
In a consumer market test conducted in a U.S. city, the product was judged well for the reduction of taste and odour, and improvement of clarity. The following percentages of the panelists judged improvements in the various areas of water quality:
• Improved Clarity 79%
• Improved Taste 98%
• Improved Odour 86%
Claim 4: Improves taste of beverages made with filtered water
In the consumer market testing mentioned above, panelists were also asked whether the taste of beverages prepared with treated water was improved. The Water Treatment System improved the taste of beverages made with treated water according to 82% of the panellists.
Two other contaminants – methyl isoborneol and geosmin, which are related to the presence of algae in the water source – are also considered significant sources of unacceptable taste. Consumers often complain about the taste and odour of such water, particularly in supplies that are subject to a seasonal algae problem. Activated carbon has been shown to be an effective method of reducing these compounds.
Claim 5: Effectively removes organic contaminants from water, including over 140 contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and trihalomethanes
The Water Treatment System has been documented to effectively remove an extensive list of organic compounds from water. The testing for these compounds has been conducted by several different laboratories.
Activated carbon can reduce concentrations of many organic compounds from water by a mechanism called adsorption. In the activation process, numerous pores are created in the carbon, greatly increasing the surface area. The carbon used in the Water Treatment System has a particularly high adsorption capacity for organic contaminants found in drinking water.
The design of the carbon bed is also critical to filter performance. Factors such as carbon type, carbon particle size, amount of carbon, the physical structure of the filter, the water path and flow rate are all critical parameters. A well designed system can reduce common drinking water contaminants to extremely low levels for the rated life. NSF International and other third-party testing have documented the organic contaminant reduction performance test. These tests documented that the system effectively removes 140 organic compounds from water.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled a list of contaminants which it has classified as priority pollutants. The Water Treatment System effectively removes a broad range of these contaminants.
The range of compounds in the priority pollutant list and the methods used to analyse for them are too extensive to summarise in this document. Typically, the methods used were as follows:
The contaminants were dissolved in a minimum of an appropriate solvent mixture and injected into the moving feed water stream with a high pressure, liquid chromatography pump. This mixture then passed through a motionless mixer to assure uniform mixing. The influent, (challenge water), and effluent (water after the filter), were sampled at several points spaced throughout the rated life of the filter, which is 5,000 litres (1,320 gallons). As a safety factor, testing exceeded the rated life of the cartridge. The cartridges were tested in duplicate.
Where applicable, the samples were taken according to U.S. EPA protocols and analysed by relevant U.S. EPA methods, or methods that were appropriate for the compounds present. The analytical methods used were acceptable technology for each of the contaminant classifications. The minimum detection limits shown were determined using U.S. EPA procedures. U.S. EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures were followed during analysis.
As the need arose for specific analytical techniques and/or confirmation of test results, certain compounds were evaluated by outside testing laboratories.
Listed below, arranged alphabetically, are the compounds tested, the detection limits for each compound, the measured average influent, the effluent averaged for the duplicate filters, percent reduction obtained in testing, and the calculated total loading on the filter. The measured average influent is an average of the influent concentrations throughout the study, and represents a minimum of seven points. The calculated loading is the summation of the influent concentration times the volume of water passed at that concentration.
Detection Limit (ppb)
Average Average Influent Effluent 5670 litres 5670 litres (ppb) (ppb)
Percent Reduction @ 5670 litres
Total Loading (mg)
Compound
Acenaphthene 0.23 67.9 <DL >99.7 386
Acenaphthylene 0.15 44.9 <DL >99.7 255
Aldrin 0.12 14.4 0.38 97.4 81.7
Anthracene 0.00036 0.0106 <DL >96.6 0.0602
Benzidine 0.010 2.54 <DL >99.6 14.5
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0016 0.224 <DL >99.3 1.274
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0023 0.0605 0.00456 92.5 0.344
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0023 0.316 0.00416 98.7 1.800
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.0090 0.434 0.0390 91.0 2.469
Benzo(k)fluoroanthene 0.0024 0.325 0.00611 98.1 1.849
alpha-BHC 0.30 80.6 <DL >99.6 460
beta-BHC 0.30 81.4 <DL >99.6 465
delta-BHC 0.30 77.8 <DL >99.6 445
gamma-BHC 0.30 80.9 <DL >99.6 463
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 0.98 136 <DL >99.3 775
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 2.2 213 <DL >99.0 1,208
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether 3.6 206 <DL >98.3 1,170
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.0 199 <DL >99.5 1,122
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 2.0 225 <DL >99.1 1,277
Butyl benzyl phthalate 1.4 226 <DL >99.4 1,276
Chlordane 0.23 58.9 0.27 99.5 333
4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 1.6 171 <DL >99.1 973
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 0.21 298 <DL >99.9 1,693
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.60 53.2 2.50 95.3 304
2-Chlorophenol 3.3 175 <DL >98.1 993
NOTE: If the effluent sample shows the designation <DL, this indicates that the level of contaminant in the effluent was below the ability of the analytical method to detect it. As an example, Acenaphthene could not be detected in the effluent samples. The detectable limit was 0.23 ppb. The level of Acenaphthene in the effluent samples would be at some level between zero and 0.23 ppb. If the effluent level of Acenaphthene (at 5670 litres) was at the detectable limit, the percent removal would be 99.7%. However, since the actual level of reduction (which would be somewhere between 99.7% and 100%) cannot be determined, the results are simply listed as >99.7%.
Detection Limit (ppb)
Average Average Influent Effluent 5670 litres 5670 litres (ppb) (ppb)
Percent Reduction @ 5670 litres
Total Loading (mg)
Compound
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 1.8 197 <DL >99.1 1,119
Chrysene 0.0051 0.232 <DL >97.8 1.322
4,4-DDD 0.40 59.4 1.05 98.2 339
Di-n-butyl phthalate 1.0 245 <DL >99.6 1,380
Di-n-octyl phthalate 2.1 179 <DL >98.8 1,009
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0090 0.524 0.0345 93.4 2.983
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.19 99.7 <DL >99.8 637
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.020 4.89 <DL >99.6 27.8
2,4-Dichlorophenol 2.1 161 <DL >98.7 917
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.0 554 <DL >99.8 3,484
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.22 163 <DL >99.9 1,020
Dieldrin 0.16 132 0.43 99.7 752
Diethyl phthalate 0.70 202 <DL >99.7 1,138
Dimethyl phthalate 0.40 197 <DL >99.8 1,113
2,4-Dimethylphenol 2.2 167 <DL >98.7 949
4,6-Dinitro-2-methyl phenol 0.43 57.4 <DL >99.3 326
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.18 57.6 <DL >99.7 328
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 175 <DL >94.3 993
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 204 <DL >95.1 1,161
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1.6 161 <DL >99.0 917
alpha-Endosulfan 0.30 75.6 2.20 97.1 432
beta-Endosulfan 0.30 79.4 1.95 97.5 454
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.70 85.2 3.95 95.4 487
Endrin 0.12 127 0.44 99.7 724
Endrin Aldehyde 0.21 20.3 <DL >99.0 116
Fluoranthene 0.0054 0.303 <DL >98.2 1.722
Fluorene 0.025 7.56 <DL >99.7 42.9
Heptachlor 0.11 24.6 0.19 99.2 140
Heptachlor epoxide 0.15 123 0.50 99.6 700
Hexachlorobenzene 1.0 84.3 <DL >98.8 479
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1.3 47.8 2.15 95.5 273
Detection Limit (ppb)
Average Average Influent Effluent 5670 litres 5670 litres (ppb) (ppb)
Percent Reduction @ 5670 litres
Total Loading (mg)
Compound
Hexachloroethane 1.6 46.6 <DL >96.6 266
Isophorone 2.9 177 <DL >98.4 1,003
Naphthalene 0.075 23.4 <DL >99.7 133
Nitrobenzene 2.4 156 <DL >98.5 886
2-Nitrophenol 0.74 150 <DL >99.5 851
4-Nitrophenol 0.099 57.6 <DL >99.8 328
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 1.3 157 <DL >99.2 890
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1.3 147 <DL >99.1 834
PCB-1016 0.70 57.9 <DL >98.8 331
PCB-1221 0.20 49.7 <DL >99.6 284
PCB-1232 0.50 30.9 <DL >98.4 177
PCB-1242 0.30 35.5 <DL >99.2 204
PCB-1248 0.20 35.6 <DL >99.4 204
PCB-1254 0.10 40.3 1.00 97.5 231
Pentachlorophenol 2.4 245 <DL >99.0 1,392
Phenanthrene 0.00072 0.0752 <DL >99.0 0.428
Phenol 1.3 68.7 <DL >98.1 391
Pyrene 0.0063 0.328 <DL >98.1 0.1867
TCDD (2,3,7,8- 0.000007 0.0131 <DL >99.9 0.0718 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-para-dioxin
Toxaphene 0.39 182 6.92 96.2 1,034
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.31 87.3 0.63 99.3 563
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.18 123 <DL >99.9 779
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2.1 168 <DL >98.7 955
ppb = parts per billion or micrograms per litre
Claim 6: Effectively removes over 13 disinfection by-products
During disinfection processes at municipal water treatment facilities, low levels of compounds can be formed when a disinfectant (typically chlorine or chloramine) reacts with residual organic matter. These compounds are referred to as disinfection by-products. Some of these compounds are suspected carcinogens, and are an increasing concern to regulatory agencies. Different disinfectant by-products may be reduced with varying degrees of success by activated carbon.
Several tests have been conducted to document the reduction of several different compounds. Testing for trihalomethanes (THM) reduction was conducted by NSF International under NSF/ANSI Standard 53. Results showed a 99.8% reduction at the end of the test period. Therefore, the Water Treatment System is certified by NSF International, under NSF/ANSI Standard 53 for the reduction of trihalomethanes, including chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromomethane.
Mutagen X (3-chloro-4-dichloromethyl-5-hydroxy-2[5H]-furanone) is a disinfection by-product that can be generated during the chlorination of municipal water with significant levels of humic content in the source water supply (decaying leaves, pulp, vegetation, etc.). It is considered to be highly mutagenic, and has been found at levels of up to .56 ppb in chlorinated humic water supplies. For this testing, a level of 3 times the highest occurrence level, or approximately 1.7 ppb, was established as the influent stream.
Testing for MX removal was performed at an independent laboratory with methods specially designed to handle and document the removal of this material with testing. In addition to MX, chloroform was added to act as a surrogate. Testing was carried out to 8000 liters with greater than 93% reduction of MX and 98% reduction of chloroform. Testing was performed on prior models* which are manufactured with the same raw materials and process. Rated life is 5000 liters and has also been documented to effectively remove chloroform by NSF International and will also effectively remove MX.
Contaminant Influent Effluent Chemical Concentration ppb Concentration ppb Reduction Percent
Tribromoacetic Acid 18 <1.0 >94.4
Bromochloroacetonitrile 5.5 <0.1 >98.2
Dibromoacetonitrile 12 <0.1 >99.2
Dichloroacetonitrile 6.2 <0.1 >98.4
Trichloroacetonitrile 7.3 <0.1 >98.6
1,1-Dichloropropanone 4.9 <0.1 >98.0
1,1,1-Trichloropropanone 5.8 <0.1 >98.3
Chloropicrin 13
<0.1 >99.2
An additional group of disinfection by-products has been identified as significant contaminants of concern. These have been demonstrated to conform to the NSF/ANSI Standard VOC surrogate. The VOC certification qualifies the device for the following contaminants:
Sample Percent of Influent Effluent A Effluent B Percent Percent Litres Filter Life MX (mg/L) MX (mg/L) MX (mg/L) Reduction A Reduction B
1226 26% 1.37 <0.035 <0.035 >97.9% >97.9%
2483 52% 0.90 <0.035 <0.035 >97.9% >97.9%
3721 79% 1.65 <0.035 <0.035 >97.9% >97.9%
4928 104% 1.93 <0.035 <0.035 >97.9% >97.9%
5886 124% 2.61 0.051 0.062 96.9% 96.2%
The table below summarises the results of MX testing.
Claim 7: Effectively removes over 30 pesticides and pesticide by-products
Pesticide contamination of groundwater and surface water is of increasing concern in the last few years, particularly in agricultural areas. Although pesticide contamination of drinking water does not appear to be widespread, surveys have shown contamination does
occur. Tests monitored by NSF System effectively removes the
Alachlor Aldicarb (Temik) Aldrin Atrazine alpha-BHC beta-BHC delta-BHC gamma-BHC (Lindane) Carbaryl Chlordane (technical mix.) Chlorpyrifos
(1) Pesticide by-products
International indicate that the TM Water Treatment following pesticides and by-products:
4,4-DDD 2,4-D Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) 1,2-Dibromomethane (EDB) Dieldrin alpha-Endosulfan beta-Endosulfan Endosulfan sulfate (1) Endrin Endrin Aldehyde
Guthion Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide (1) Hexachlorobenzene Malathion Methoxychlor Parathion Pentachlorophenol Strychnine 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) Toxaphene
Claim 8: Effectively removes vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride is a colourless organic gas that is used in the plastics industry to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC). PVC pipe is often used as a material for drinking water pipes. In the mid-1970s it was discovered that vinyl chloride was causing cancer in workers through exposure in the factories. Prior to that, much of the PVC pipe contained high levels of residual vinyl chloride, which could contaminate drinking water. Since that time, manufacturing methods for the pipe have changed to significantly reduce any vinyl chloride that may be in the plastic, and this is not considered a problem with the newer pipe. However, much of the earlier pipe is still in use and vinyl chloride contamination of
drinking water is still occurring. Vinyl chloride is also a common by-product formed by the biodegradation of some industrial solvents. This can result in the contamination of ground water. The European regulation 98/83/EC establishes a maximum contaminant level of 0.5 ppb for vinyl chloride in drinking water.
Prior models* were tested for the reduction of vinyl chloride from water. The test was conducted according to NSF/ANSI Standard 53–1998 Drinking Water Treatment Units Health Effects. The testing was conducted internally under the review of NSF International. NSF generated the protocol and audited the testing operation to assure compliance with the protocol.
The systems were run in a cycle of 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, for 16 hours per day. Vinyl chloride was added to a municipal water source at an average concentration of 8 ppb. The water had an average background total trihalomethane (TTHM) concentration of 28.3 ppb during the test period. Duplicate water treatment systems were tested for a total of 5670 litres each.
The systems reduced the vinyl chloride concentration to less than the instrument detection limit of 0.5 ppb, throughout the test period of 5670 litres. This is greater than a 93% reduction of the vinyl chloride.
A mathematical model was used for the prediction of vinyl chloride reduction capacity for the systems. This model predicted the capacity for the filter to be greater than 95 percent at its rated capacity for the reduction of vinyl chloride. When comparing the modelling performance using the same influent and background TTHM concentrations, the model compares very close to the actual data. The model predicted that the filter would reach the threshold before the actual duplicate filter performance did showing the model to be a conservative prediction.
The system and other model filters are manufactured with the same raw materials and process. This same mathematical model was used to predict the performance of the filter to reduce organic compounds, like chloroform, before the filters were submitted to NSF for certification. Based on the numerous performance evaluations and NSF certification of the filter, it has continued to demonstrate that it performs as well as the other filters. The mathematical model was once again used to determine the reduction performance of vinyl chloride. The model predicted that the filter would reach breakthrough before the actual filter did showing the model to be a conservative prediction. The rated life of the filter is 5,000 litres and the modeling prediction demonstrates the performance well beyond the rated life with a 450 litre margin of safety.
The system’s ability to reduce vinyl chloride is predicted to be greater than 93% at its rated life. *Prior models used for testing: E84, E8301, E3411
Claim 9: Effectively removes Microcystin LR, a common algae toxin
Algae are microorganisms that grow in water, particularly if the water is stagnant and contains high levels of nutrients. Algae cells can form long filaments that form into floating mats on the surface of water. Algae can cause taste and odour problems in drinking water. Certain species of algae also produce toxins, which can be released into the water. Recently, researchers have found these toxins in drinking water used for human consumption. Some of these toxins can have immediate effects if ingested, and some are suspected carcinogens. The most common algae toxin found in drinking water is Microcystin LR.
We contracted to have prior models* tested for the reduction of Microcystin LR from drinking water. In addition to Microcystin LR chloroform was added to act as a surrogate. In an NSF International audited study conducted at a major university by a professor who is considered a leading expert on algae toxins, the systems reduced the concentration of the Microcystin LR toxin to a level less than the instruments were capable of detecting. This is greater than a 99.8% reduction. The surrogate, chloroform, did not break through at the end of the 6,132 litre (1,620 gallon) test. Therefore, it can represent Microcystin LR. The TM and prior models’ filters are manufactured with the same raw materials and process. Based on this surrogate program, the Water Purifier will also reduce Microcystin LR to greater than 99.8 percent.
*Prior models used for testing: E84, E8301, E3411
Claim 10: Effectively removes particulates down to 0.2 microns including asbestos, sediment, dirt, and scale
The unit uses a compressed carbon block filter. The spaces between the carbon particles in the filter are extremely small and are able to filter out small particles. The claim for particulate reduction down to 0.2 microns has been documented by the following:
1. A test of the ability of the filter to reduce particles of a test dust down to 0.5 microns. Conducted by NSF International, this test qualified the system for certification under NSF/ANSI Standard 42 reducing particles by greater than 85% to achieve Class I reduction.
2. Other lab testing has shown the Water Treatment System’s ability to reduce even smaller contaminants. The data showed that system effectively removes particles in water down to 0.2 microns.
This testing was performed in our laboratory and samples were sent out for CCSEM (Computer Controlled Scanning Electron Microscope) equipped with an energy dispersive X-ray spectrophotometer. This provided an analysis of the size of particles as well as elemental composition of the particles. Testing was performed on two systems using ISO fine test dust (0 – 80 micron). The lowest particle removal efficiency was 96.6 % at 25% reduction in flow for one of the filters in the 0.2 – 0.4 micron range. Particle removal improved as particle size increased.
3. Two Water Treatment System units were tested for asbestos reduction by NSF International under NSF/ANSI Standard 53. The tests yielded a reduction of asbestos fibres of 99.99%. This certifies the unit for asbestos reduction under standards set by NSF International.
Claim 11: Effectively removes lead in drinking water
Lead is rarely found naturally in water but can enter into drinking water through lead pipes or from solder which contains lead. Lead can exist in different forms in water, depending on the pH. A water treatment device may be effective at one pH but not another. Therefore, it is important to test a water treatment system at two different pHs more to accurately determine lead reduction.
The Water Treatment System were tested for lead reduction by NSF International under NSF/ANSI Standard 53 specifications. The test units achieved greater than 99% reduction, which qualified them for NSF International certification for drinking water lead reduction.
Claim 12: Effectively removes mercury in drinking water
Mercury can enter the water supply through environmental contamination from industrial and waste sources. It can exist in different forms in water, depending on the pH. Therefore a water treatment device may be effective at one pH, but not another. This is why it is important to test a water treatment system at two different pHs to accurately determine mercury reduction.
The Water Treatment System cartridges were tested for mercury reduction by NSF International under Standard 53. The units achieved greater than 81.1% reduction, earning NSF International certification for mercury reduction in drinking water.
Claim 13: Effectively removes radon and radon decay products in drinking water
Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that has no taste, odour, or colour. It is produced by the natural breakdown of uranium and is found in soils and rocks containing uranium, granite, shale, phosphate, and pitchblende. Most radon rises out of soil and rock and is harmlessly released into the atmosphere. Hazardous exposure to high concentrations of radon can occur under two circumstances:
1. Inhalation of radon within our home or dwelling. This is radon that is seeping into the home through the foundation, or cracks and seams, or radon that is being released into the air from showers, washing machines, and dishwashers. Inhalation of radon gas can increase the risk of lung cancer; and
2. Ingestion of radon from groundwater sources of drinking water. Ingestion of radon from drinking water may increase the risk of stomach cancer.
Protozoan Parasite Size (micrometer)
Cryptosporidium parvum 3 to 4
Endolimax 5 to 14
Iodamoeba 5 to 14
Naegleria 7 to 21
Cyclospora cayetanesis 8 to 10
Giardia lamblia 8 to 12 x 6 to 8
Entamoeba histolytica 10 to 20
Toxoplasma gondii 10 to 13 x 9 to 11
Acanthamoeba 12 to 23
Two Water Treatment units were tested for radon reduction by NSF International under NSF/ANSI Standard 53. The tests yielded a reduction of radon in excess of 99.99%. This certifies the unit for radon reduction under standards set by NSF International.
The Water Treatment System should not be used on drinking water where the level of radon exceeds 4000 pCi/L. Under such conditions inhalation becomes a more significant issue, and alternate mitigation strategies should be utilised to treat the water at the point of entry to the home.
Claim 14: Effectively removes waterborne parasites larger than 3 to 4 microns
The Water Treatment System has been shown to effectively remove particles as small as 0.2 microns per claim 10. Cryptosporidium oocysts are in the 3 to 4 microns size range. Since these represent the smallest protozoan parasitic organisms likely to be found in drinking water, the filter will also effectively reduce any other larger waterborne parasites by 99.95%.
The following table lists the relative sizes of most of the known waterborne protozoan parasites. Some of these are only found in subtropical or tropical regions. Giardia and Cryptosporidium are the most likely to be found in drinking water.
Most other waterborne protozoan parasites of potential concern occur in subtropical or tropical regions, and are infective to humans in the larval stage. These larval worms are very large compared to the above organisms. Since the system can effectively reduce the smallest of these protozoan parasites (Cryptosporidium), it will also effectively remove any other larger waterborne parasites.
Claim 15: Does not remove beneficial minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, and fluoride
In most municipal water systems, fluoride is added at low levels to improve dental health. It is also generally considered beneficial to ingest low levels of certain other minerals, such as calcium and magnesium, which are present in most water supplies at various levels. Tests conducted with municipal water supplies have shown that the Water Treatment System does not remove calcium, magnesium or fluoride from drinking water.
Claim 16: Effectively removes MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether)
In Europe, MTBE is a petrol additive that is used to make it burn more efficiently. Unfortunately, this is also a contaminant that has made its way into groundwater due to leaking underground storage tanks and other sources.
NSF/ANSI Standard 53 has a protocol to test drinking water systems to reduce MTBE. Two filters were tested at NSFI for MTBE reduction. The mean influent challenge was 14.8 ppb. The effluent concentration was below detection limit throughout the test at 0.5 ppb. This means the actual reduction was greater than 96.6% for MTBE.
Claim 17: Ultraviolet light destroys more than 99.99% of waterborne disease causing bacteria and viruses in drinking water
Claim 18: Ultraviolet light destroys Cryptosporidium
Introduction
The US Environmental Protection Agency, through a multidisciplinary task force, developed a test protocol for water treatment devices for their ability to produce microbiologically safe water. The intent of the protocol is to test these devices with bacteria, viruses and cysts, for their designed operational life. The guide standard establishes that any microbiological water treatment system is to be capable of removing or inactivating enteric bacteria, Organism Influent Challenge Minimum Organism Reduction
Bacteria Klebsiella terrigena 105/ml 99.9999%
Virus Poliovirus 104/ml 99.99% Rotavirus 104/ml 99.99%
Cyst Giardia lamblia or 103/ml 99.9% Cryptosporidium 103/ml 99.9%
viruses and protozoan parasites. The devices must also be capable of achieving these results under realistic “worst case” water quality conditions.
The test requires a device to reduce specified bacteria, viruses and cysts from drinking water in a series of flowing and stagnant conditions. The test protocol applies only to microorganisms, and does not measure the ability of a system to reduce chemical or particulate contamination. The microorganisms and the reduction requirements are listed below.
US EPA Guide Standard
Test Methods
Three separate tests were used to prove the performance of the UV/reactor of the Water Treatment System:
1) 2) 3)
A modified U.S. EPA Guide Standard UV Dose measurement with MS-2 coliphage Cyst Infectivity with live Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts
Test Method 1
The protocol for the studies was based on the U.S. EPA Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Treatment Systems, Task Force Report April 1987. Testing was performed at an independent, third-party facility. Three filters were challenged under simulated worst case conditions over a 13-day period. The water was supplied to the products for 150% of the rated life of the system, for a total of 7,500 litres (1,980 gallons), in an “On/Off” cycle (one minute on/two minute off cycle). The initial flow rate of the water was set at 3.4 lpm (0.9 gpm) the maximum recommended for the system.
Microorganism Influent Effluent Percent Reduction
Bacteria Klebsiella terrigena 1.82 x 107/100 ml <1/100 ml >99.9999
Viruses Poliovirus Rotavirus Coliphage MS-2
4.97 x 108/1000 ml 3.03 x 107/1000 ml 1.6 x 105/ml
<1000/1000 ml <100/1000 ml 0.457 x 102/ml
>99.99 >99.99 99.97
Four challenges of water, containing the microorganisms at the appropriate level, were supplied to each unit at water treatment volumes of 250, 3,748, 5,000, and 7,500 litres (66, 990, 1,320, and 1,980 gallons). At these times influent and effluent samples were taken and assayed by standard methods for the organism under study. After two 48-hour stagnation periods, initial effluent water samples were also sampled and assayed to determine the possible presence of organisms after prolonged stagnation. The physical and chemical parameters of the dechlorinated water and test system were monitored daily.
Coliphage MS-2, a non-pathogenic virus, was included in this testing because it is the test organism in NSF/ANSI Standard 55, Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems, to assess the effectiveness of drinking water treatment systems, due to its high resistance to ultraviolet light.
Results:
The table below shows the results of the bacterial and virus challenge of the Water Treatment System.
Microorganism Reduction Data
Test Method 2
The UV dosage of the ultraviolet lamp in the Water Treatment System was determined using MS-2 coliphage. This organism was calibrated against known UV doses to determine the level of reduction per unit of intensity. This test was performed on two units at a third-party laboratory. The flow rate of the test unit was adjusted to a maximum of 3.4 litres/minute. The lamp used in the test was conditioned for 150% of capacity of the system to simulate worst case ageing. There were two different challenge waters used in this test to cover extreme conditions of Total Organic Carbon (TOC), nitrates, nitrites, and turbidity. The TOC was added as potassium hydrogen phthalate. The turbidity was tested at two levels 0.3
Bacteria UV Intensity for Expected Reduction 99.9% Reduction at 42.2 mJ/cm2
Shigella dysenteriae 2.080 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Vibrio cholerae 2.236 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Yesinia entertocolitica 3.652 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Aeromonas hydrophila 3.697 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Campylobacter jejuni 3.786 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Enterohemorragic 4.185 mJ/cm2 >99.9999% Escherichia coli
Salmonella typhi 6.639 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Legionella pneumophila 7.441 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
Klebsiella terrigena 9.115 mJ/cm2 >99.9999%
and 3.0 NTU using 0 – 5 micron test dust. During this test the actual filter had holes drilled in it to demonstrate the UV dose of the lamp/reactor itself. The test organism was injected into the challenge water entering the Water Treatment System, and the effluent stream was sampled to determine the reduction rate on this organism. The UV reduction rate was then compared to the calibration information to determine the UV dose.
In order to support the reduction of other bacteria with the Water Treatment System, studies were done to show that if a system provided adequate control of an organism with a certain sensitivity to UV energy, then organisms that were controlled at lower levels of UV energy would also be adequately reduced by the Water Treatment System. For this surrogate bacteria reduction method, Klebsiella terrigena was used as the primary testing organism. The amount of UV energy needed to reduce Klebsiella terrigena by at least 99.9% was compared to the UV energy needed to reduce several other bacteria by at least 99.9%. The table below shows these relative intensities.
Results
By this method, the UV dosage of the Water Purifier was determined to be 42.2 mJ/cm2. This intensity is well above the 9.1 mJ/cm2 necessary to reduce Klebsiella terrigena by 99.9%, as well as the other organisms in the table that require less than 9.1mJ/cm2. In fact, this evaluation determined that 42.2mJ/cm2 will reduce Klebsiella terrigena by more than 99.9999%. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that the Water Treatment System will control all of the organisms listed by more than 99.9999%.
Microorganism Influent Effluent Percent Reduction
Cysts Cryptosporidium 7.9 x 103/ml 1.4/ml > 3.7 log parvum oocysts
Test Method 3
The Cyst Infectivity test was performed at an independent, third-party lab. Two units were tested in duplicate using Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. The flow rate of the test unit was adjusted to a maximum of 3.4 lpm (0.9 gpm). The lamp used in the test was conditioned for 150% of capacity of the system to simulate worst case aging. The challenge water used in this test covered extreme conditions of TOC, nitrates, nitrites, and turbidity. The TOC was added as potassium hydrogen phthalate. The turbidity was
set at 3.0 NTU using 0 – 5 micron test dust. During this test the actual filter had holes drilled in it to demonstrate the UV dose of the lamp/reactor itself. The test organism was injected into the challenge water entering the Water Treatment System, and the effluent stream was sampled to determine the reduction rate on this organism.
Results
The table below shows the 99.95% reduction performance for Cryptosporidium oocysts of the Water Treatment System. This completes the three classes of organisms under the U.S. EPA Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Treatment Systems.
Microorganism Reduction Data
Claim 19: The carbon filter will treat drinking and cooking water for 5,000 litres (1,320 gallons) or one year, whichever comes first, well in excess of the need of a family of 6
Introduction
In order to assure that the Treatment System provides an adequate supply of drinking and cooking water, an analysis of water usage per family was reviewed and incorporated into the product platform.
Results
The Water Treatment System is listed by NSFI for a capacity of 5,000 litres (1,320 gallons). (1,2,3) indicate that an average family uses about 1,893 litres (500 gallons) of water per year for cooking and drinking. All testing was conducted to 5,000 litres (1,320 gallons) in order to ensure the recommended one year life.
It is estimated that the average person consumes 1.63 litres of “liquids” per day, based on nine different surveys taken from literature (4). This would equal 3,570 litres (943 gallons) per year for a family of six. This value has been rounded up to 2 litres per day by the U.S. EPA and used to calculate health risks of exposure to water contaminants. A family of six, drinking two litres per day, would use 4,380 litres (1,157 gallons) of water per year.
The claim that the Water Treatment System will provide a sufficient quantity of adequately treated drinking and cooking water for the average family of six for one year is based on the following:
a) b) c)
the consumption of “liquids,” as determined in the referenced studies; most individuals consume a portion of their “liquids” from sources other than drinking water; and the 5,000 litre endpoint for the contaminant removal testing.
Therefore, it has been determined that the Water Treatment System will treat well in excess of the drinking and cooking water needs for a family of six for one year.
1 National Water Summary 1983 – Hydrologic Events and Issues. U.S. Geologic Survey Water Supply, Paper 2250. 2 Water Quality Association – Point of Use Treatment for Compliance with Drinking Water Standards. May 6, 1983. 3 Statistical Abstract of the United States 1984, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 4 Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 1, National Academy of Sciences, 1977.
Claim 20: Convenient, replaceable carbon/UV filter
Consumer market testing of the Water Treatment System was conducted in a U.S. city. During the testing, new cartridges were supplied to the panellists, and they were asked to install the cartridge. Afterwards, they were asked to rate the ease of replacing the cartridge. The rating scale ranged from “Extremely Difficult” to “Extremely Easy.” More than 84% of the panellists indicated the cartridge was easy to replace.
Claim 21: Attaches to most standard kitchen water faucets
The Water Treatment System contains adapters that allow the attachment of the diverter valve to various styles of kitchen faucets. The Water Treatment System was panel tested with consumers. The consumers installed the systems in their homes. Questionnaires were used to determine the success rate for attaching the diverter valves to the faucets. Of the panellists, who responded to the question, more than 73% were able to attach the system to their kitchen faucet.
Claim 22: Uses exclusive US-patented technology
The Water Treatment System is covered by the following U.S. patents: 4,753,728; 4,859,386; 5,017,318; 6,368,504; 5,573,666; 5,529,689; 6,436,299, with additional U.S. and International patents granted or pending.
Return To Home Page : Water Filters