The Bottom Line:
 |
Whole house water treatment systems are used mostly to reduce contaminants
that affect aesthetic qualities of water rather than
contaminants of health concern. This page will focus on the three main types
on the market that are commonly used to treat municipal
water:
1) Filtration Systems: sediment, activated carbon,
kdf
2) Water Softeners: ion exchange - regenerate with
salt
3) Non-Salt Water Conditioners - magnetic,
special signals, catalysts |
|
|
There are just a few whole house filters that are certified to
reduce a limited number of contaminants. |
|
|
If a whole house filter is certified to reduce a
specific contaminant like chlorine for a specified number of
gallons, there is no guarantee that other contaminants of
concern will be reduced as effectively as the certified
contaminant. |
|
WQA and NSF are working with a Task Force to propose a revision to the WQA
S-200 and NSF/ANSI 42 and 53 standards and determine
if it is possible to create a testing procedure that protects consumers
while helping to reduce the cost to manufacturers for certification.
|
|
|
Ion
exchange water softeners, used to reduce water hardness, can
be certified for effectiveness by
both NSF and WQA. They are certified under different
standards than water filters. |
|
|
There
is currently no certification and also little scientific
proof that magnetic, electronic, or catalytic water conditioners are
effective. |
|
|
Be
very skeptical of claims made for non-traditional water treatment
products like filters that contain special modules to
“energize” the water in some way. There are no processes
recognized by science that can change the energy, chemical,
or physical characteristics of pure water to make it more
beneficial to health than 'regular' water. Examples
include Vortex Revitalizerd Water, Energized Water, Structured Water,
Wellness Filter Technology, Vitality Enhancing Technology ("VitaTech"). |
|
There are many types of Point of Entry (POE) or whole
house filtration systems and conditioners on the market, yet
there are few resources available to consumers
that can help them evaluate contaminant reduction and
filter life claims made by the manufacturers.
This discussion will not address cation exchange
water softening for which there is NSF/ANSI
certification (standard
44) or specialty water
treatment products that are mostly used on private water
sources like iron, manganese, nitrate, sulfur
and neutralizing filters, chlorinators, etc.
Point of Use (POU) water treatment products that treat a
relatively small amount of water
(typically under 1,000 gallons a year) are
covered elsewhere on this site.
Many POU systems are certified by NSF International and the Water
Quality Association (WQA) to reduce specific
contaminants to specific levels.
Product
certification is a valuable tool consumers can
use to make informed choices about selecting POU
water treatment systems. There are a
number of products on the market that make
exaggerated or fraudulent claims, and
certification provides a third-party
validation of performance claims.
In contrast to cation exchange systems
and POU treatments,
Point of Entry Filtration Systems
treat tens to hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per year, and
very few POE water filtration systems
are certified by NSF or WQA.
As a rule, the number of contaminants POE
filters are currently certified to reduce are
also
small –
typically Chlorine, Taste and Odor
Reduction. Some systems are also certified to
reduce mine, particulates, and turbidity. WQA certifies
specialized Point of Entry filtration
systems for acid neutralization, and voc, iron, manganese,
arsenic, and/or sulfur reduction - contaminants
more likely to be encountered by people using
well, spring or surface water rather than
municipal water. Several ultra filtration
POE systems are certified to reduce cysts,
bacteria, and viruses.
If a consumer is concerned about contaminants in the water entering a dwelling that affect health, certified POE and POU devices should be used in tandem to cover a broad range of aesthetic and health claims.
Links to find
certified POE systems:
NSF Certification -
Select "Drinking Water/Water Filter" from the
Product Category
dropdown menu and click on
"Search". Then "Point-of-Entry" from the
Product Type dropdown menu.
WQA Gold Seal Certified Product Listings
-
Select Product Type = "Point of Entry"
then click the "Search by Product Type" button.
I asked representatives of both WQA and NSF if
they would answer some questions about
certification for whole house water treatment
systems, and they graciously provided the
answers below:
- Cheryl Luptowski, Consumer Affairs Officer, NSF International
- Pauli Undesser, Director of Regulatory and Technical Affairs, Water Quality Association
- Thomas P. Palkon Director of Product Certification, Water Quality Associationn
- Joseph F. Harrison, Water Quality Consulting Services
Q: Why aren't there more whole house filtration
systems certified to reduce more impurities?
A: NSF Response -
There are many factors that affect product performance, including product design and construction, service cycle length, as well as the contact time between the water and the filter media. NSF/ANSI standards for water filters require that systems not only reduce a contaminant by a minimum amount, but they must maintain that reduction for the service cycle promised by the manufacturer. While there are several manufacturers of POE systems that have earned NSF certification, depending upon the contaminant of concern, there may be no whole-house systems certified for the purpose, only point-of-use systems. (Cheryl)
A: WQA Response -
It is much more common for companies to certify
POU devices but the industry standards do allow
for POE devices to be tested and certified. WQA
has certified some POE devices for chlorine,
iron, manganese, sulfide, VOC, and TTHM
reduction in accordance to the NSF/ANSI 42, 53
and WQA S-200 standards.
All impurities (contaminants) that a company
intends to certify must be tested individually
by the certification body. Because the cost of
testing is considerably high for POE systems
that have high capacity claims it becomes cost
prohibitive for companies to have each of their
claims verified by a third party such as WQA or
NSF.
I feel that the main reason companies do not
certify POE devices is due to the cost of
testing and certification compared to the number
of units that will need to be sold to recoup the
costs. Testing and certification to the WQA
S-200 or NSF/ANSI 42 and 53 standards are very
complex and expensive. Part of the reason for
the high costs is due to the fact that these
standards require contaminant reduction testing
that verifies the POU or POE systems capacity.
In order for WQA or NSF to verify of POE system's
capacity of a 1 million gallon claim we actually
have to spike water with the contaminant, send
the water through the treatment system to the
claimed capacity, and verify that the unit
reduces the contaminant for the rated life of
the filter.
Also, for many claims we actually
have to test the system to 200% of the rated
capacity. POU systems typically have capacities
ranging from 40 gallons to a few thousand
gallons requiring tests to last a few weeks but
POE systems will have to be tested for several
months or years before their rated capacity is
reached. For example, to test a POU filter for
one contaminant (Lead in this example) that has
a flow rate of 0.5 gpm and a capacity of 1000
gallons the costs will total around $30,000 to
complete all the required tests. A POE system
claiming a 100,000 gallon capacity could cost
over $200,000 to test and verify one performance
claim such as lead. (Tom)
Q: Have any whole house filtration systems been evaluated to
determine if exaggerated performance claims are
made? Whole House Filtration systems of similar
size and description from different manufactures
can be found that have rated treatment volumes
that differ by a factor of 10 (i.e. 100,000 vs.
1 million gallons)? In the absence of
certification, how can a consumer determine
which marketing claims are true? Are there
any regulatory requirements that water filter
claims must be truthful??
A: NSF Response -
With the exception of a handful of states, certification through an independent third party such as NSF is generally voluntary and not required in order for a company to be able to sell a water treatment system. In some cases, proof of performance may be required if a manufacturer makes a claim that their product reduces a health-related contaminant. Because so few regulatory agencies require product certification in this area, consumer demand for proof of performance before purchasing a product will be key in helping to address these gaps. (Cheryl)
A:
WQA Response -
WQA has never evaluated exaggerated performance
claims for whole house filters. Unless the
company is actually certifying the product with
the water quality association we do not have any
mechanism to evaluate performance claims. You
are correct that activated carbon is capable of
adsorbing contaminants for a certain amount of
time and is not regenerated in people’s homes.
Typically, the media in whole house carbon
filters is replaced after a certain time period
or after the media has been exhausted. The
capacity of the activated carbon media varies
depending on the make of the consumer water. It
is also common for whole house activated carbon
filters to effectively remove chlorine in
drinking water for capacities up to or exceeding
1 million gallons. WQA has certified systems
for chlorine removal for these this type of
claim. If this same system is being used to
reduce high levels of disinfection by products
it will probably only be effective for 100,000
gallons. (Tom)
In the absence of certification, it is up to the consumer to determine which marketing claims are true. This can be an easy task if the product manufacturers have conducted sound testing. However, if the testing is not sound, then this becomes a daunting task for a consumer.
In regards to regulations that mandate truthfulness in marketing claims for POU and/or POE products, the best example would be when regulations mandate third party certification. States such as California, Wisconsin, and Iowa have regulations that require third party certification for sale in those states. (Pauli)
Q: I searched for information about whole house filtration systems from reputable sites (mostly .edu domains) and was unable to find much of anything to help people select a whole house filter. Is there a reason there is little accurate, unbiased information published on whole house filtration systems - or am I somehow just missing sites that really exist?
A: NSF Response -
When it comes to water treatment, much of the
focus during the past few years has been on
drinking water rather than the water used for
non-potable water purposes. With 70 – 80 percent
of household water being used for non-drinking
water applications (i.e. flushing toilets,
washing clothing or dishes, or irrigation),
there may not have been as much interest or
focus in treating water not intended for
consumption. (Cheryl)
A: WQA Response -
I’m not sure why this information is not publicly available. The media used in POE systems are used in many small and large drinking water treatment systems around the world which are used to protect public health and safety on a daily basis. The systems that WQA has evaluated typically perform very well for the performance claims made by the manufacturer. (Tom)
Q: Do you know of any resources where consumers
might be able to obtain reliable information
about the accuracy of water treatment claims for
non-certified products?
A: NSF Response -
In the case of non-certified products, we encourage consumers to contact the manufacturers and sellers to ask why the product isn't certified to an ANSI-adopted standard. With regards to whole house filters such as carbon filters, standards actually exist to which many of these products can be tested (i.e. NSF/ANSI 42 and/or 53). However, it is important to note that these systems must be just as effective as their point-of-use counterparts when it comes to their ability to reduce contaminants, which can sometimes be a challenge with higher flow rates and longer service cycles.
Consumers would most certainly benefit from independent certification of POE systems as well as those intended for POU applications. There are also several companies with POE filter systems already certified to these standards, a list of which can be accessed online at:
http://info.nsf.org/Certified/dwtu/
(select "Point-of-entry"
from the product type dropdown menu").
(Cheryl)
A: WQA Response -
No. In the absence of certification, it is up to the consumer to determine which marketing claims are true. This can be an easy task if the product manufacturers have conducted sound testing. However, if the testing is not sound, then this becomes a daunting task for a consumer. (Pauli)
Regarding the necessity to certify POE claims,
health contaminant reduction performance claims
should be substantiated via accredited
third party testing and certification. But most
consumers use certified POU products, not POE,
for protection against health contaminants in
drinking water. POE products are largely used
for aesthetic enhancement of water supplies because the majority of the water is flushed down the drain rather than ingested.
Here product testing and certification is not as
critical because the consumer can see or sense
for himself when the system is working or not
working to remove the smell and taste of
chlorine, the bath tub scum, dingy laundry, and
ruined fixtures from hard water, or the
unsightliness of iron stains. (Joe)
Q: Since certification of POE filtration systems under NSF/ANSI Standards 42 and 53
may be impractical for most manufacturers, would it be possible to
create separate standards for POE systems so more systems could be
certified?
A: NSF Response -
To your point about the possibility of creating a separate standard for POE devices, consumers looking to purchase a POE system would most likely expect it to be just as effective at reducing a contaminant as a POU system. If separate standards were developed for POU and POE devices that had different requirements for design or performance, this could very likely lead to confusion as well as misunderstandings regarding potential product performance.
Because the cost for certification of POE systems can be significant given their larger service cycles, an NSF task force has been created to look into potential options. The task force has participation from a broad base of interested parties, who are working together to see if it is possible to create a testing procedure that protects consumers while helping to reduce the cost to manufacturers for certification.
(Cheryl)
A: WQA Response -
WQA and NSF are working with a Task Force to propose a revision to the WQA S-200 and NSF/ANSI 42 and 53 standards which would incorporate an accelerated test procedure for POE systems. If validation work can verify this accelerated test is as accurate or equivalent to normal flow through testing this revision could make testing POE systems more affordable for companies which would increase the number of Certified POE systems. We do not want to make the testing criteria for POE systems less stringent because this could compromise consumer safety but we do recognize a need for a standard revision to make testing and certification of POE systems more affordable for manufacturers. (Tom)
Q: Because there are few certified POE filtration systems (and few
contaminants of health concern that systems are
certified to reduce), what criteria should a consumer who is
considering the purchase of a POE system use to
evaluate the effectiveness of different systems
and the accuracy of performance claims?
A: NSF Response -
Regardless of whether you are purchasing a POE or POU device, it is important to take a moment to first identify what performance capabilities that you need in a system, i.e. what contaminants you want the system to reduce. Then you can ask the manufacturer for “proof of performance” to show if any testing has been done on their product to address that particular impurity. Ultimately, when purchasing a non-certified system, regular testing on the water being produced by the system may be necessary to determine performance.
(Cheryl)
A: WQA Response -
It is suggested to follow the same criteria that the national standards use. To properly evaluate the performance of a POE or POU system, at a minimum, testing must validate the following criteria:
-
Material safety
-
Structural Integrity
-
Performance – test data to support a rated capacity at a rated service flow using a relevant influent challenge and specified pass/fail criteria
-
Do marketing materials match test data?
Ion exchange (salt) water
softener: The science behind traditional ion exchange
water softeners is a proven and well understood
technology - water passes through an ion exchange
resin in which the positive calcium and magnesium ions "hardness minerals" in the water are replaced with sodium
(or potassium) ions - levels of other minerals may also be
reduced.
Sodium ions do not precipitate out of the
water and form insoluble scale deposits like calcium and
magnesium. There is a large body of information on
traditional ion
exchange water softeners:
Neb Guide - Water Softening,
Wikipedia - Water Softening
Non-salt water
conditioners:
Non-salt water
conditioners (sometimes called physical water conditioners), on the other hand, claim to use other treatment
methods to reduce the tendency for calcium and magnesium to form
scale deposits. These processes are intriguing for a
number of reasons. If they could actually
condition water as effectively as a traditional
ion exchange softener, they would be
significantly less expensive to operate; they
would not add brine to the waste water as
traditional softeners do while regenerating; and
then would not add extra sodium to the
conditioned drinking
water.
Often these treatments involve
permanent magnets or electromagnets that are affixed to the water pipes.
The magnets are alleged to alter the
characteristics of the hardness minerals (mostly
calcium and magnesium) so they do not create
scale in pipes or on surfaces. Promoters of
other technologies may indicate their devices
"uses electronic frequencies to physically change the shape and charge of the minerals in water, which prevents scale build-up."
Promoters of other
technologies may claim their product "acts
as a catalyst reducing the degree of super
saturation required to form solid calcium
carbonate crystals".
Other companies use various combinations of processes "This
extraordinary catalyst is then combined with
multiple powerful magnets...",
or process
names without any theory are mentioned "Our
revolutionary Beotron Water Treatment System
conditions water without using salts, chemicals
or magnets."
Several companies do not even
bother to describe the 'conditioning' methods
used. Most of the process descriptions I have
read are scientifically naive and contain
pictures of treated and untreated water that are
completely meaningless - much like the water
crystals photographed by Masaru Emoto that
allegedly demonstrate different crystal
structures that water creates based on thoughts or words taped to
water bottles.
|
While searching for evidence to support non-salt water conditioners
I came across a blog written by an engineer that discussed two of
the topics I was researching
- he described first hand experiences with the OneFlow
conditioning system and the portrayal of a Beotron energy cell
from another conditioner as "a PVC tube capped at both ends and filled with sand and a copper wire running down the center."
http://www.plumbingengineer.com/feb_09/designers.php
I wrote the author, Timothy Allinson, and requested an update on his experiences with the OneFlow conditioner and whether or not the copper wire in the Beotron cell was connected to any control system.
His Reply:
"Hi Randy,
I have no quantitative data on my OneFlow unit, but it's effectiveness is noted in myriad ways. I have a black spatula that turns white in the dishwasher with a calcium powder coat when the water is really hard. This usually occurs in late Fall, before our rains come, and when the water quality is at its worst.
Last year (Fall 2009) my tell-tale spatula turned very white, and this was 6 months after the unit had been installed, giving me the sense that it was doing nothing.
This Fall (2010) it didn't happen. I'm not sure if that was because the unit finally cleaned out all the residual calcium from the water heater and pipes, or if it was because this Fall was wetter than usual and perhaps our water wasn't as hard as it often is that time of year.
I have noticed that the aerators on my faucets still calcify, and I can't use tap water in my fancy Tassimo espresso machine or it gets fouled-up. In short, I think the unit is better than nothing, but it doesn't work magic as claimed.
There really is no substitute for traditional softening. I am also suspect that the manufacturer has no data to prove its effectiveness - just promises that it is forthcoming, year after year. Highly dubious.
Regarding the Beotron device, the copper wire was not connected to any power source or magnet.
I could see no way it would have possibly have had any effect on the
water.
Best regards,
Tim Allinson" {used with permission}
An interesting aside - LifeSource, the company that promoted
the 'Beotron energy cell' just a few years ago, has now
(Jan
2011) removed nearly all references to the
device from their web site. The company still uses the
term, as in "The Beotron System has earned the Gold Seal by the Water Quality Association"
but instead of claiming that their Beotron process conditions
water without salt, they claim that hard water is great, their
water filters do not add salt to the environment and yet they
are "Manufacturing the best available water softener
alternative to salt-based water softeners." and
again, "A LifeSource Water System delivers clean delicious water to your entire house and
helps reduce the problems associated with hard water without using salts or magnets, and it's maintenance free."
http://www.lifesourcewater.com/
Interesting statements since there is nothing mentioned
now about how the problems associated with hard water might be
reduced except a cryptic reference in the Product Description
section about a 'Physical Conditioning Unit.' ----
The elusive Beotron energy cell??? |
|
The 'scientific' basis for the ability of these devices to “soften” water is disputed by
many scientists and water treatment professionals and
often considered to be “pseudoscience”. It
is difficult to prove that they actually work consistently
under the same conditions as a traditional water softener
since the chemical composition of the water is
not changed.
There is currently no independent testing standard to certify that “salt-free” systems actually soften
or condition the water. Since these systems do not remove hardness minerals from water, it it
inappropriate to call them water softeners - in fact their
treated water will have the same amount of hardness minerals
(calcium and magnesium) as untreated water.
Perhaps the main warning flag for these
products is that there seem to be no consistent,
experiments performed by companies (or research
groups) that do not
have a stake in the product which demonstrate
effectiveness at reducing scale or improving
cleaning in a normal home environment.
One
might expect that if these products were as
effective as traditional water softeners (even
at reducing or preventing scale buildup in
pipes) there
would be considerable scientific and economic interest and a
many research projects designed to clearly
demonstrate and help understand
the effects and expand their uses.
Hard Water and Water Softening - skeptical
discussion.
If you see certifications listed for these
products they are currently only for material
safety or reduction of contaminants for which there are certification
standards like chlorine reduction, sediment
reduction, etc. and NOT certification for
product effectiveness at conditioning water - read the
literature carefully. "WQA Tested & Certified to NSF/ANSI-61 Quality Standards" for example "
means "covers indirect additives products and materials, including process media, protective materials, joining and sealing materials, pipes and related products, mechanical devices, and mechanical plumbing devices (including faucets). In essence, every material from the well or water intakes through to the faucet are covered."
Nothing about conditioning!
Similarly, NSF/ANSI standard 41
is for the reduction of specific aesthetic or non-health-related contaminants (chlorine, taste and odor, and particulates).
Because of the
fact that there are many different techniques
promoted as effective at conditioning water
without salt, and there are no industry standards,
no certification processes (for actual
performance),
and no high quality scientific evidence to support
the multiple claims and treatment methods used
in the various processes, the
customer only has the word of the product
manufacturer or sales representative that the
product is effective.
If you are
considering purchasing one of these products, you might want to consider the
following steps to
protect your investment:
-
Find a
company with a good money-back guarantee and an
A+ Better Business Bureau rating.
-
Before the
conditioner is installed, determine exactly what you wish the new conditioner to
do and make a list of measurable goals. For example:
-
if you
regularly have scale buildup on dishes, sinks or shower heads note how long
it takes and how hard the scale is.
-
If cloths
don't come out clean with a measured amount of detergent, list the amount of
detergent you use and the problems you experience.
-
If you can
open a pipe to measure scale buildup directly, note what it looks like
before the conditioner is installed.
In
other words, carefully
document what the problems are with your water that you wish the conditioner to
fix and what you expect the conditioned water to do.
-
Without documented, measurable goals it is
impossible several months down the road to
assess the effectiveness of a product.
Nearly all testimonials you will read are
impressions of how a product was perceived to
have worked. These perceptions can easily
be influenced by hopes and expectations.
-
Ask the company you plan to
purchase the conditioner from how long it will
take to solve the problems and exactly what
measurable changes should occur in your
list of problems and how long each change will
take to occur.
-
Make sure their timeline
falls within the warranty period.
- At the end of the warranty period if the product
has not performed according to product claims and your
expectations return it.
Q: What is the position of NSF and WQA on
non-salt water conditioners?
A: NSF Response -
With regards to non-salt water conditioners consumers need to demand that the
manufacturers and sellers of these products work
with an ANSI-accredited standards developing
organization to help them develop a universal
American national standard to which their
products can be tested to ensure they perform in
accordance with the claims being made by the
seller while also meeting minimum standards for
structural integrity, material safety,
electrical safety, etc. as needed.
A: WQA Response -
http://www.wqa.org/pdf/Consumer_Alert_softening.pdf
Other Sources of information on non-salt
water conditioners:
Larry Henke of
the Robert B Hill Co, published an article in
1998 entitled "Do Magnetic and Electromagnetic Water Conditioners Work? in Water Conditioning & Purification Magazine.
The article reviewed over 100 papers on the
subject. He concluded, "There are few
scientific studies referenced in accepted
technical journals, and most don't support these
claims. Of the few that do, this article
only wishes to call attention to certain
limitations." The article is
reprinted here with permission of
Water Conditioning & Purification Magazine,
© 2010
I found a
2001 report from the WQA Magnetics Task
Force. The task
force reviewed available papers on a variety of
magnetic and other physical water treatment
processes. The task force was not charged
with evaluating the science behind the
technologies, processes, or devices or
determining whether the treatment processes
work. Nonetheless, the thirty four papers
that met the task force's criteria for
scientific validity "provided indications
that physical water treatment does work, that it
does not work, that it may work but only in
certain circumstances, and that it may work in
conjunction with or as a result of coincidental
trace chemical or ionic leaching mechanisms or
other combination technologies. ...These
questions are not answered by this report."
Many types of non-salt home water conditioners
are sold, as mentioned above. In the
absence of good scientific evidence that these
products work the companies often provide
documents that on the surface provide
evidence of effectiveness but in
truth are taken out of context. A good
example is the review,
Non-Chemical Technologies for Scale and
Hardness Control, reposted on the
GMX water
conditioner site. This study, released in
1998 and commissioned
by the Department of Energy, seems to validate
the technology. I was curious, though, when I could
not find copies of the document on sites of
organizations that produced the report - so I wrote and
asked... Below are the replies from Cyrus Nasseri and
Steven
Parker of the Battelle Company that demonstrate
a clear misrepresentation of available evidence
by a company
{my
emphasis}.
|
Steven: The New Technology Demonstration Program under the DOE, Office of Federal Energy Management Programs (FEMP), did issue a Federal Technology Alert (FTA), "Non-Chemical Technologies for Scale and Hardness Control" in 1998.
The report was directed toward commercial applications, such as cooling towers and boiler systems. The report was not meant to cover potable water applications.
Nether DOE nor PNNL did any testing of the technology. Federal Technology Alerts are summary reports describing the technology and its potential application.
The DOE retired the Federal Technology Alert in 2000, removed it from print and the FEMP web site, and it is no longer available. Neither FEMP nor PNNL have assessed the technology since the 1998 report.
At that time, there were some non-validated reports that the technology may work in certain applications and may not work in other applications. It was not possible to predict the results.
Your e-mail referenced the old report. There are many "altered" versions being distributed by vendors via the internet. I cannot confirm their content for accuracy.
In a demonstration performed by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USA CERL),
they found the technology to have no impact in a boiler feedwater application. (A copy of the 2001 CERL report may be ordered from NTIS at
www.ntis.gov, NTIS Order Number: ADA399455).
{also
here}
E-Source, a private membership organization, has reported on magnetic water treatment since the FEMP FTA was retired. See publications TAS-TN-9-08 and TAS-TN-6-04.
The Sacramental Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Consumer Advanced Technology Program conducted an assessment of pulsed-power water treatment (Clearwater Dolphin) and issued a summary report in 2003. The report assess the water treatment aspect of the technology but did not measure or document the energy aspect. The report is located on their web site at http://www.smud.org/en/education-safety/cat/Documents/PulsePower.pdf
{Note this product is for
commercial applications, not home treatment devices
- RJ - and 1/5/14 update, the report is apparently
no longer available on the smud site, but it (or
related reports can be found by searching on Google}
Cyrus:
I know that ASHRAE has done some research
on non-chemical water treatment for biological
issues (the results were not positive) and I think
that they have also done some research on
non-chemical treatment for issues such as your web
site – scale and hardness. |
Stephen Lower also mentions this study on his
Magnetic water treatment and pseudoscience
page and concludes, "This
1998 document which has been withdrawn from circulation was a Federal Technology
Alert from the U.S. Department of Energy that presented a suspiciously
uncritical case for both magnetic and electrostatic water treatment. It provided
no references to support the claims made, and the explanations of how these
devices are supposed to work were scientifically naive. The report was
apparently compiled by the Battelle Research Institute, which may have farmed
out some of the work to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory."
A June 2001 report on
Magnetic
Water Treatment
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
concluded:
"There is a long history of controversy regarding the effectiveness of magnetic water treatment for preventing scale in water systems. Magnetic “treatment” consists of passing potentially scaling water through a magnetic field. Promoters of magnetic devices claim that this simple operation provides a scale-control method, even for water having a high tendency for scaling. It is also often claimed that magnetic exposure can inhibit corrosion. The attached document provides an evaluation of current magnetic water treatment technology. Scientific literature is reviewed and summarized and several devices are tested for scale prevention.
In summary the magnetic water treatment devices were not effective for scale control."
An experimental study, “ Evaluation of Magnetic/Electrostatic Water Treatment Devices”,
(described in the emails above)
was conducted under
the Operations and Maintenancee, Army; Work Unit F88, for the U.S. Army Center for Public Works, and the results were released in
a 105 page report September of 2001. "The objective of this work is to conduct a field test of the performance of magnetic devices. The results will be used to evaluate whether or not the specific tested devices were effective in preventing mineral scale formation in this study.
...This study concludes that these results indicate no clear advantage for any of the three devices tested over a control for the inhibition of mineral scale formation or the corrosion of copper. The test protocol was designed to simulate the method of production of hot water used in many larger institutional type settings that employ
a shell and tube heat exchanger for the production of hot water.
These findings do not support the claims of the manufacturers
regarding the ability of their respective devices to prevent
mineral scale formation in hot potable water systems."
Evaluation of Alternatives to Domestic Ion Exchange Water Softeners:
an April 2011 study from Dr. Peter Fox et. al at Arizona State
University. This is a summary of a study that reported
less scale deposit on heating elements using several no-salt
alternative treatments. This is an interesting (but
apparently relatively isolated) study,
and I have been unable to find any follow-up information
(7/2012). This report is one of two listed in the research
section of a site selling salt-free conditioners,
http://aquagenesisusa.com/technical/independent-research.html.
The site also contains
another report of a study on non-salt treatment for the Mitigation
of Mineral Fouling in Cooling-Tower Water
Applications. This seems to be a conference presentation that might
not be reviewed, and treatments for cooling towers might not be
applicable for domestic water treatment in any case.
Magnetized water: Science or fraud
- Another
review of available evidence
from the
Journal of Chemical Education in 2008
concluded: "Despite
the wide use of water magnetizers and their endorsement in the
scientific literature, there is no scientifically proven
evidence of their effectiveness or mechanism of action. Although
some studies suggest that magnetic fields can alter specific
properties of aqueous solutions, the underlying mechanism
remains obscure and the alleged effects must depend on a number
of physicochemical variables including temperature, pH, ionic
composition of the water, intensity of the magnetic field, flow
rate of the water through the field, pipe material (copper, PVC)
and various geometric parameters of the system which must be
further investigated in depth before any solid conclusions can
be established regarding the claimed effects of magnetic fields
on water properties."
http://www.wcponline.com/NewsView.cfm?pkArticleID=1752
-
Clamp-on water
treatment: ...Since there is no U.S.
standard (although an effort was made to enlist
the financial support of the equipment
manufacturers themselves for one a few years ago
to very little effect), there's no way of
proving the above claims. Even the German
standard simply is a measure of scale
prevention; it goes no further in detailing
additional properties or under what variable
conditions the equipment might be effective. As
such, WC&P's position on this is neutral.
Whether or not the adage "buyer beware" is
appropriate here is anyone's guess. You buy at
your own risk. (2002 article)
School in Texas uses Scalewatcher system to reduce scale in building
-
A school in Texas is benefiting from reduced salt and chemical usage following the installation of the computerized, electronic, water-conditioner Scalewatcher® from Scalewatcher North America. The Scalewatcher system has proved so successful that the school authorities are proposing to install units in every building, which will save the school authority thousands of dollars a year in buying salt, extra water for backwashing, softener repairs, wasted energy and cleaning products.
Another press release reports;
Scaling problems reduced for dairy farm in Canada.
(This is an intriguing report, but press
releases are not scientific studies. In the absence of
blinding and rigorous controls, it is possible for the positive
testimonials to be biased by expectation. - RJ)
NMSR Teams with KRQE-TV13 on "Magnetic Water Conditioners"
An experiment into the effectiveness of a
magnetic water treatment product. A sales person was
recorded while presenting his pitch and his claims were
evaluated. The conclusion, "Barker
explained the basic pitch, the undercover video, and the
experimental setup. He then asked Kim Johnson if there had been
any differences between magnetically-treated and normal systems:
there was none. I said on-air that 'It's clearly pseudoscience.
It has the trappings of science, but when you dig into it,
there's nothing there. There's no evidence, there's no proof,
there's no logic, there's not even a why it works.'
"
GardenWeb Forum: Yes or No to EasyWater water softener:
|
Voodoo water softening
|
This
discussion from 2008 - 2011 contains comments from water
engineers and users of several no-salt conditioning systems.
The experts on the forum, not surprisingly, insisted on rigorous,
independent test
results, and there were almost none provided by supporters of
the products. A number of alleged satisfied users also
contributed anecdotal stories to the discussion, but as
with all
testimonials, there is no way
to verify whether the poster had no
financial interest in or connection to the product or whether a sincere
evaluation was influenced by hopes and expectations.
A
continuation of the discussion above.
Another
GardenWeb
thread on the topic - this one about the Zeta Rod conditioner.
Another thread that discusses the nuvoH2O conditioner.
These forums can be confusing to someone looking for
accurate information
who does not have some expertise in the subject - without an
ability to
evaluate comments the discussion can appear to be among equally
qualified individuals with completely opposite conclusions.
In the absence of clear impartial published
scientific evidence that supports specific product claims, my
recommendation is to take the side of the skeptic and avoid relying
on product claims supported by testimonials,
press releases or isolated research papers
conducted on behalf of the manufacturer.
Close this screen to return to the previous page. |
 |
| Copyright © 2011 Randy Johnson. All rights reserved. |
Updated November 2011 |
|
