<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6943086#post6943086 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paintbug
JimR your TDS says enough. those filters are nothing more than a carbon filter, and some fine mesh. they wont remove heavy metals.
JimR, if you have a new filter, I'd be interested to know how it tests. Generally, Brita pitcher filters are supposed to be replaced every two months. There is activated carbon in Brita filters, which does, in fact, become less effective over time. (Perhaps just sitting in a filter with residual water from filtration won't effect the performance, but I simply can not say. for certain.)
this link also shows how expensive several different filters can get over a year
http://www.waterfiltercomparisons.net/WaterFilter_Comparison.cfm . as you can see the Brita Faucet Filter is $214.95 per 1000gal.
That link is demonstrably false, but possibly just outdated.
You can purchase a
Brita Disposable Faucet Filtration System for $24.99 at Drugstore.com. These filters are good for 300 gallons.
( 1000 gallons / 300 gallons ) * $24.95 = $83.17
Furthermore, pitcher filters, for whatever reason, appear to be less effective than faucet filters.
and for $215 you can get a Typhoon III RO/DI and have some $$ left.
The
replacement filters for the Typhoon III RO/DI cost $49.95. I've seen recommendations from others that these be replaced every six months, but you provide evidence that this may not be necessary.
i dont think the point is the expense anyway,
Expense doesn't seem to be an issue, but several people, including you, continue to say that Brita is more expensive than other RO/DI systems, which is not always going to be the case. A DI system will be cheaper to start and cheaper to maintain for a year or longer.
As for the notion that Brita does not remove minerals, the best I can do is tell you to read either the Brita website for specs on the product you are interested in or check the web. There seems to be very little information out there, but I have found a couple of links like
this one reinforcing the notion that it does remove minerals, but that it's an imperfect method for doing so.
Perhaps you ought to consider a plain DI filter like
this one. It's hard to say how expensive it will be (produces 25 gallons to 125 gallons per filter), but it seems rather straight forward. (Note that at 25 gallons per filter, this system would only produce 150 gallons of water for $80. At 125 gallons per filter, this would produce 750 gallons of water for $80.)
I should make it clear that I'm not proposing that the Brita filter is effective at doing much. Information on its effectiveness is sorely lacking. Perhaps WaterKeeper (or someone with expertise in chemistry) could offer their opinion, point to better information or even run some tests. Personally, I'd like to see a number of products tested so that a risk and cost benefit analysis can be done. As it is, comparing all of the different options is difficult given that this topic is complex and that these threads on RC generally tend to reinforce that "RO/DI is the only way." The problem with this message is that those who can't spend $215 may just continue to use tap water thinking there is no alternative.