Contaminant Reduction List

This list is for information purposes only!

Each of our purification units has a Performance Data Sheet detailing the contaminants it is certified to remove. The medias used in our system may be known to reduce additional contaminants, but only the certified contaminants have been tested.

Below is information about contaminants that may be reduced even if they are not on the Performance Data Sheet. It is impossible to state how much of these contaminants will be removed from your water, if any. Please don't ask.

 

Purification Medias Utilized in the AquaLiv Water System A300:

  • Activated Carbon
  • BC Carbon
  • KDF-55

 

BC Carbon is known to reduce:

  • Aluminum
  • Arsenic III,V
  • Cadmium
  • Chromium III,IV
  • Copper
  • Iron
  • Lead
  • Manganese
  • Mercury
  • Nickel
  • Silver
  • Zinc
  • Fluoride

 

KDF-55 used with Activated Carbon:

  • Aluminum
  • Arsenic
  • Barium
  • Cadmuim
  • Chomium
  • Iron
  • Manganese
  • Mercury
  • Silver
  • Zinc
  • Nitrates
  • Chlorine
  • Chloramine
  • Chromates
  • Permangenate
  • Radon
  • Radium
  • Stronium
  • Uranium
  • Cyanide
  • Sulfides
  • Benzene
  • Carbon tetrachloride
  • Chlorophenol
  • Dichloro Benzene
  • Dichloro Ethylene/Prophene
  • Ethyl Benzene
  • Ethylene Dibromide
  • Herbicides
  • Pesticides
  • PCBs
  • Phenolies 
  • THM
  • Trichlorethane
  • Trichororethylene
  • Vinly Chloride
  • Xylenes

 

More information about KDF-55:

KDF-55 media will reduce water soluble cations of lead, mercury, silver, nickel, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and most other dissolved heavy metals upon direct contact. The removal mechanism is electrochemical and partially catalytic. Metallic contaminants are permanently bonded to the KDF media

 

Microorganisms:

The AquaLiv Water System features mechanical filtration to .5 microns nominal. This is smaller than most microorganisms and would most likely result in most microorganisms being reduced to some level. However, the system has not yet been tested against microorganisms and we cannot state how much of what kind, if any, would be reduced at this time.

7replies Oldest first
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Active threads
  • Popular
  • Is the system NSF certified to reduce flouride?  And also chromium 6?

    Reply Like
  • Hello Grace,

    Model A305 has not been tested against fluoride or chromium 6, although it uses purification medias known to reduce both. Model A500 uses reverse osmosis for purification which is know to reduce fluoride by 88-94% and even greater for chromium 6. Thank you.

    Reply Like
  • It doesn't add up that you wouldn't test for fluoride given this is one toxin that many people specifically wish to avoid and is known to be in water supplies. This is one of my top wants from a filtration system and you're telling me you haven't bothered testing it?? And  then you say your reverse osmosis system/model is the one to go for after I've just finished reading your article on why to avoid this method - now I'm confused!

    Assuming you have an adequate response to this question, are your systems available outside the States? I'm in Australia.

    Reply Like
  • Hi Mark,

    The NSF test protocol for fluoride is based on the EPA limit. This amount is something like 5-8 ppm. Nothing on an affordable residential scale will have an average reduction of greater than 99% of fluoride at 2ppm for the lifespan (in gallons) of the filters, not alone 5-8ppm. Why haven't we tested with the A305? It wouldn't pass the test. Nothing does. Even though most people only have .5-2ppm in their water, the concentration used for the test isn't negotiable. It is an NSF standard.

    We don't recommend reverse osmosis systems because they remove all the beneficial minerals. Our A500, while employing reverse osmosis technology, remineralizes the water after it has been purified.

    We do not have a dealer network in Australia, but ship all over the world. You can get an estimated shipping cost by adding the product to our shopping cart and entering the shipping address.

    Please let me know if you have an additional questions. Thank you, Mark.

     

    Reply Like
  • Hi Tom (& Mark),

    I'm also very interested in your products, however your comments:

    "Nothing on an affordable residential scale will have an average reduction of greater than 99% of fluoride at 2ppm for the lifespan (in gallons) of the filters, not alone 5-8ppm"

     . .  I believe "may" be open for further discussion.

    I have a Berkey Water Filter with PF-2 Fluoride filters purchased for a similar cost to your products. We have very high Fluoride levels in many towns & cities in new Zealand (can be up to 8-12ppm), and a lab report provided me with results showing that the fluoride levels were reduced to "below" 0.2ppm following the filtration process of the PF-2's.

    The lab advised the only reason they couldn't give me a figure lower than 0.2ppm was that their equipment would not measure below that reading. From that I conclude that it was lower still by the filtering of the PF-2's.

    If this is indeed what you are referring to (an average reduction of greater than 99%), then the Berkey filters do the job, but they do not provide Ionised water - hence my query here regarding fluoride "protection".

    I'd be interested to find out more about any "measured" reduction of fluoride in your products, as it's a huge problem for us all over NZ. If the results are satisfactory, I do believe your products would be of great interest to many of us who take our healthcare . . . and water, very seriously indeed.

    I appreciate your comments & clarification regarding the above.

     

    Reply Like
  • Hi Steve,

    A test to NSF standards involves multiple samples taken over the lifespan of the filters (stated in total volume of water purified). Therefore, if a company markets a system that has a filter life of 1000 gallons, the contaminant reduction level is measured at 10 gallons, 200 gallons, 400 gallons, 600 gallons, 800 gallons, 1000 gallons, and finally 1200 gallons (systems without a volumetric filter life indicator are tested to 120% of the stated filter life). The amount of the contaminant that was reduced at each sample point is then combined to get an average reduction over the lifespan of the filters. Any water system manufacturer that states a reduction claim not based on NSF standards (in the U.S.) are making unlawful claims and are not being upfront with their customers.  Any carbon filter, even a cheap Brita filter, will have amazing fluoride reduction in the sample taken at 10 gallons. Passing a standardized test is a different hurdle entirely.

    Since you specified the Berkey PF-2 fluoride filter, here is their protocol:

    FLUORIDE: Testing for fluoride was based on 20-30ppm of the ion in the influent aqueous solution at a flow rate of no more than 3 gpm per cubic foot of media. Results of < 1ppm of the fluoride ion in the effluent were typical for the media (95% reduction). Under optimum conditions, effluent concentrations of less than 50 ppb were readily achieved (99.75% reduction).

    This is called a "batch test" and it is one sample. Further, this is the specification for the media used in the filter, not the filter itself. Standardized testing requires the filter to be tested according to protocol. Media tests are not a substitute and a "batch test" is not the standardized protocol.

    REPLACEMENT: Under normal conditions it is recommended that each set of two PF-2 elements be replaced after 1,000 gallons.

    The statement of filter life above (also from the PF-2) is unlawful in the U.S.  I'm sorry to report, but the PF-2 filter will not reduce fluoride by greater than 99% for 1000 gallons. Also keep in mind the media used in the PF-2 is Activated Alumina and while it does reduce fluoride, it also introduces aluminum into the water creating a new problem. (read some of the reviews on Amazon)

    Any legitimate claim for a contaminant reduction must be backed up by a testing report by a 3rd party laboratory that states the NSF/ANSI Standard by which the claim is backed by. These tests are expensive to do and thus many companies do not do it.

    I don't want to bash Berkey, they make a fine product for what it is. (Although most people don't want to purify water in a bucket on their countertop.) However, contaminant reduction claims that aren't based on the standards are misleading to consumers.

     

    Reply Like 1
  • Tom,

    Many thanks for the clarification, and bringing the Activated Alumina issue to my attention.

    Reply Like 1
Like Follow
  • 2 yrs agoLast active
  • 7Replies
  • 1662Views
  • 4 Following