Water Filters

[nancybninja]

We want to drive down the road with our fresh water tank open. We just realized when we drain the tank and walk around inside, more water drains out. I don’t want to pour new water into old and older, we drink that when dry camping.
Now I’m paranoid.

[sajohnson]

Originally Posted by nancybninja

We want to drive down the road with our fresh water tank open. We just realized when we drain the tank and walk around inside, more water drains out. I don’t want to pour new water into old and older, we drink that when dry camping.
Now I’m paranoid.

I don't see any problem with leaving the fresh tank drain valve open.

Instead of, or in addition to, doing that, when filling the tank you could leave the drain open initially so that the new water flushes out the old.

If you do not already use a filter, that is always a good idea.

We have a 1 micron (nominal) sediment filter before the 'city water' inlet, and a PUR filter on the kitchen faucet. The PUR filters are small, but very highly rated. As far as I know, they meet all NSF 42 and 53 standards.

We also use a Brita pitcher, but IIRC it is primarily a "taste & odor" filter (aka, NSF 42 spec) that also meets a few NSF 53 requirements.

The problem with the PUR filters is that the housing can only be mounted on standard faucets that are threaded for an aerator. The mounting adapter uses the aerator threads (internal or external). There is no way to use a PUR filter on a faucet with a sprayer.

Under-sink filters are a good option but require some plumbing. Be sure to buy a standard size housing so that you have many filters to choose from.

[nancybninja]

Our MH came with a under sink filter I change every 3 months but it’s not the best you can buy. I’m upgrading next change.

[sajohnson]

Originally Posted by nancybninja

Our MH came with a under sink filter I change every 3 months but it’s not the best you can buy. I’m upgrading next change.

Is the filter housing a standard size -- i.e., 2-1/2"x10"?

[nancybninja]

Yes it is almost 10” x 2.5”.
We also have the standard blue Camco filter on the outdoor hose.
I keep thinking I’m going to research a better filter for the indoor setup but I keep forgetting and I’m standing in the aisle wondering and just grab the basic one.

[twogypsies]

Here's a good place to buy RV filters or to ask any questions. They are extremely helpful:

https://www.rvwaterfilterstore.com/

[Forkyfork]

Originally Posted by nancybninja

Yes it is almost 10” x 2.5”.
We also have the standard blue Camco filter on the outdoor hose.
I keep thinking I’m going to research a better filter for the indoor setup but I keep forgetting and I’m standing in the aisle wondering and just grab the basic one.

I am removing my leaking everpure filter system and replacing it with a .03 micron cyst removing filter. I only filter drinking water to a spout in the kitchen. I use the blue camco filter for the rest of the water, mainly to trap the sediment. It has poor taste and odor reduction for drinking water.

I got my filter on discountfilters.com The filter I ordered is made in the USA and NSF certified. I had to get the filter info off the manufacturer website. I have the K5515-JJ.
K Spec - Omnipure Filter Company
They have the filters other places but the best price was discount filter. It’s a challenge finding reasonably priced made in USA filters.

https://www.discountfilterstore.com/...er-filter.html

[sajohnson]

Originally Posted by twogypsies

Here's a good place to buy RV filters or to ask any questions. They are extremely helpful:

https://www.rvwaterfilterstore.com/

I just quickly scanned their site.

I like the fact that they sell standard size filter housings (for 2.5"x10" filter cartridges). That way the customer can purchase filters wherever they want, from any mfr. It's best to avoid any proprietary equipment.

Their best filter, the "CeraMetix", looks very good, but it does not appear to be tested by NSF. All I see is "NSF certified *components*", and "meets or exceeds NSF standards 42 and 53" -- not "NSF certified".

It is not uncommon for filter mfrs and retailers to play these semantic games. There are two primary reasons they do this:

1) Their filter probably *would* receive NSF 42 & 53 certification, but they do not want to pay the NSF.
2) If their filter(s) were submitted to NSF for certification they may not pass.

The problem for us consumers is, how do we know? Is it #1 or #2?

It's not enough to say, "Meets or exceeds NSF standards 42 and 53". The question is, according to WHO? Their own in-house testing? There are a few that make that claim: "We tested our filter(s) and found they outperform all others on the market! Trust us!"

The RV Water Filter Store mentions the WQA and Pace Analytical. One or both of them may be fine, but personally I'd feel better knowing that any water filter I buy has actually been certified by NSF.

I find it interesting that mfrs of water treatment products claim that XYZ Labs is "just as good as NSF", but then do everything they can to imply that their products are tested and certified by NSF. They will use phrases like, "Tested to NSF 42 standards" and "Meets NSF 53 requirements".

Here is an explanation of the NSF standards. The most common are 42 & 53:
NSF Standards for Water Treatment Systems - NSF International

Keep in mind that whoever does the certification, "NSF 53" does NOT mean the filter traps/reduces all of the contaminants listed under NSF 53. In fact, a filter can get NSF 53 certification and only be effective on 1 or 2 of the dozens of contaminants!! Brita pitcher filters are an example of this. Buyer beware. Two or more filters can have NSF 53 certification and have wildly different performance.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that is the case here with the CeraMatrix filter -- it may very well be fine -- but I have not seen the "Performance Data Sheet" for it. Anyone who is serious about water filtration should ask for the Performance Data Sheet and confirm that the filter does indeed effectively reduce all of the listed NSF 53 contaminants -- or at least those that are a concern.

Here is a link to the NSF page to search for products actually certified by NSF:

Listing Category Search Page | NSF International

I have heard good things about the RV Water Filter Store. None of the above is intended to be critical of them -- only to provide information to potential buyers. I like what they say about "the blue <cough> Camco <cough> filter" here:
https://www.rvwaterfilterstore.com/STEP1.htm

"...system that can be connected using your RV water hose, the same as one of these blue filters. These are great for improving the taste and removing chemicals and they usually have KDF, which reduces lead and heavy metals. The downside of these inline filters is that they let sediment under 100 microns through. In comparison, a human hair is about 75 microns on the average. It will also let all pathogens through. So if you are ok with bugs and hair in your water, this will be fine. But if not..."

[sajohnson]

Originally Posted by Forkyfork

I am removing my leaking everpure filter system and replacing it with a .03 micron cyst removing filter. I only filter drinking water to a spout in the kitchen. I use the blue camco filter for the rest of the water, mainly to trap the sediment. It has poor taste and odor reduction for drinking water.

I got my filter on discountfilters.com The filter I ordered is made in the USA and NSF certified. I had to get the filter info off the manufacturer website. I have the K5515-JJ.
K Spec - Omnipure Filter Company
They have the filters other places but the best price was discount filter. It’s a challenge finding reasonably priced made in USA filters.

https://www.discountfilterstore.com/...er-filter.html

That looks like a decent filter for taste and odor reduction (which is what NSF 42 deals with) and it would probably get a NSF 53 rating as well for cyst reduction.

I did not see any mention of NSF certification, but I could have overlooked it -- I just did a quick scan.

Keep in mind, "NSF 53" on the package does NOT necessarily mean that the filter removes/reduces all NSF 53 contaminants. If you aren't concerned with any of the other NSF 53 contaminants (and I'm not necessarily suggesting that anyone should be) you're good to go.

Here is a list of everything on NSF 53, along with links to products that remove them:
Contaminant Reduction Claims Guide - NSF International

It's important to keep in mind that most water in the US and Canada is perfectly safe to drink. It is extremely rare to hear about people getting sick from a public (or even private) water supply.

Most of us have been drinking out of <gasp> water fountains all of our lives and miraculously, we're still here.

That said, if a person is going to purchase a water filter, they should know what they are getting. What it will do for them and their family, and what it will not.

I saw that the RV Water Filter Store sells a filtration system for use in countries that have questionable (aka, will make you violently ill) water quality. That's one end of the scale, and clearly overkill for most sources of water we're likely to run into in the US and Canada.

The blue Camco filter (or nothing) is the other extreme.

For sediment we use a standard, clear, filter housing and a 1 micron (nominal) filter. It's rated at 5 gpm, so there is essentially no restriction when filling the tank. I would use a better filter, but anything that works well will generally be rated at 1/10 the flow rate or less (<0.5 gpm), which means a l-o-n-g wait to fill the water tank -- ONE HOUR for 30 gallons. Better to use a NSF 53 filter at point of use.

BTW -- you might want to check the micron rating on that Omnipure filter -- if they are claiming 0.03 micron that's a typo.

[sajohnson]

Originally Posted by nancybninja

Yes it is almost 10” x 2.5”.
We also have the standard blue Camco filter on the outdoor hose.
I keep thinking I’m going to research a better filter for the indoor setup but I keep forgetting and I’m standing in the aisle wondering and just grab the basic one.

Excellent -- you have a lot of choices in the std 2.5 x 10" size!

What we use at home wouldn't really help you because it is two (2) 2.5 x 10" filters in series -- meant to work as a set. For reference, they are very good filters and only cost ~$24 for the pair on Amazon. No need to spend more than that on a single filter.

As for what to use for a single filter, there are many that will do a good job.

You might check the NSF website. See the links I posted above to get started.

That's probably best, because if you do a Google search you'll end up wading through marketing hype on mfr and retailer websites. One thing you will rarely find are the performance data sheets. Filter mfrs and retailers seem very reluctant to make the data sheets available. A few possible reasons are:

* Their filters aren't very good.
* Regardless of the quality of their filters, they may feel that publishing the performance data will confuse potential buyers.
* They are afraid customers will ask a lot of questions, when all the retailers want is a quick sale.

Even well known brands with nothing to hide make customers request that the data sheets be emailed to them. For example, I had to contact PUR to get their data sheets (which were impressive).

I'm kinda curious myself about what's available in high performance single under-sink filters (I may replace our faucet and switch to a 2.5" x 10" under-sink filter), so let us know what you find or if you have questions.

You might want to look for filters that are certified to pass the NSF testing for all NSF 53 contaminants.

~~~

Edit: Things seem to have changed since I was last at the NSF site. I just scanned this list of "NSF/ANSI 53 Drinking Water Treatment Units (Health Effects)":

http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/L...submit2=SEARCH

I did not see any good ol' std size filter cartridges. Most seem to have gone to a proprietary design, which is a shame.

Some of the best seem to be the refrigerator filters -- see Sears and Whirlpool. I've never thought about using a fridge filter but they are compact. Only rated for 100-200 gallons, but that's more than most people will use in a season.

I don't like the fact that you cannot see the water and the filter element, but that's not a deal-breaker.

~~~

We ditched the blue Camco filters a few years ago because:

* They clog quickly and become very restrictive. That happened with every one we used, on different trips at different locations.
* They only filter to 100 microns. 100 microns is very large. A hair is about 70 microns. For comparison, the sediment filter we use is rated at 1 micron (nominal).
* They are solid so you cannot see the water or what is being filtered out.
* They are expensive for what they are and how long they last.
* Camco claims they will remove a variety of contaminants, but in order to do that the water flow must be <0.5 gpm. At that rate a 30 gallon tank would take an *hour* to fill.

It is irresponsible to make claims that rely on a flow rate below a specific amount. Camco knows a) most buyers will not realize they must slow the water flow to a trickle, and b) even if they are aware of the requirement, there is not way to accurately determine the flow rate (gpm).

When yet another Camco filter got clogged, we went to Menard's and purchased a clear std size filter housing w/sediment filter, a 6' NSF drinking water certified washing machine hose with a braided stainless cover, and a couple brass garden hose/3/4" pipe thread adapters and never looked back. Well worth the $45 or so.

[Cyanne]

Originally Posted by sajohnson

Excellent -- you have a lot of choices in the std 2.5 x 10" size!

What we use at home wouldn't really help you because it is two (2) 2.5 x 10" filters in series -- meant to work as a set. For reference, they are very good filters and only cost ~$24 for the pair on Amazon. No need to spend more than that on a single filter.

As for what to use for a single filter, there are many that will do a good job.

You might check the NSF website. See the links I posted above to get started.

That's probably best, because if you do a Google search you'll end up wading through marketing hype on mfr and retailer websites. One thing you will rarely find are the performance data sheets. Filter mfrs and retailers seem very reluctant to make the data sheets available. A few possible reasons are:

* Their filters aren't very good.
* Regardless of the quality of their filters, they may feel that publishing the performance data will confuse potential buyers.
* They are afraid customers will ask a lot of questions, when all the retailers want is a quick sale.

Even well known brands with nothing to hide make customers request that the data sheets be emailed to them. For example, I had to contact PUR to get their data sheets (which were impressive).

I'm kinda curious myself about what's available in high performance single under-sink filters (I may replace our faucet and switch to a 2.5" x 10" under-sink filter), so let us know what you find or if you have questions.

You might want to look for filters that are certified to pass the NSF testing for all NSF 53 contaminants.

~~~

Edit: Things seem to have changed since I was last at the NSF site. I just scanned this list of "NSF/ANSI 53 Drinking Water Treatment Units (Health Effects)":

http://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/L...submit2=SEARCH

I did not see any good ol' std size filter cartridges. Most seem to have gone to a proprietary design, which is a shame.

Some of the best seem to be the refrigerator filters -- see Sears and Whirlpool. I've never thought about using a fridge filter but they are compact. Only rated for 100-200 gallons, but that's more than most people will use in a season.

I don't like the fact that you cannot see the water and the filter element, but that's not a deal-breaker.

~~~

We ditched the blue Camco filters a few years ago because:

* They clog quickly and become very restrictive. That happened with every one we used, on different trips at different locations.
* They only filter to 100 microns. 100 microns is very large. A hair is about 70 microns. For comparison, the sediment filter we use is rated at 1 micron (nominal).
* They are solid so you cannot see the water or what is being filtered out.
* They are expensive for what they are and how long they last.
* Camco claims they will remove a variety of contaminants, but in order to do that the water flow must be <0.5 gpm. At that rate a 30 gallon tank would take an *hour* to fill.

It is irresponsible to make claims that rely on a flow rate below a specific amount. Camco knows a) most buyers will not realize they must slow the water flow to a trickle, and b) even if they are aware of the requirement, there is not way to accurately determine the flow rate (gpm).

When yet another Camco filter got clogged, we went to Menard's and purchased a clear std size filter housing w/sediment filter, a 6' NSF drinking water certified washing machine hose with a braided stainless cover, and a couple brass garden hose/3/4" pipe thread adapters and never looked back. Well worth the $45 or so.

The PO of the RV we purchased left this filter which goes under the galley sink (picture attached). I went to the Flow Pure (Pur) site to look for this particular filter with Part # FP10GT but when I went to order it "not available" popped up. Does any one have any ideas. Amazon doesn't carry this particular filter but does carry Flow Pure FP10GKT..looks like the one I have just a different part number.
If I can't find this filter can I use the filter that attaches on the outside to my fresh water hose and the campsite water hookup?

[Cyanne]

Originally Posted by Cyanne

The PO of the RV we purchased left this filter which goes under the galley sink (picture attached). I went to the Flow Pure (Pur) site to look for this particular filter with Part # FP10GT but when I went to order it "not available" popped up. Does any one have any ideas. Amazon doesn't carry this particular filter but does carry Flow Pure FP10GKT..looks like the one I have just a different part number.
If I can't find this filter can I use the filter that attaches on the outside to my fresh water hose and the campsite water hookup?

This is the filter the PO said I need to get. She didn't know where her husband (now deceased) got it from

[sajohnson]

Originally Posted by Cyanne

The PO of the RV we purchased left this filter which goes under the galley sink (picture attached). I went to the Flow Pure (Pur) site to look for this particular filter with Part # FP10GT but when I went to order it "not available" popped up. Does any one have any ideas. Amazon doesn't carry this particular filter but does carry Flow Pure FP10GKT..looks like the one I have just a different part number.
If I can't find this filter can I use the filter that attaches on the outside to my fresh water hose and the campsite water hookup?

Hi Cyanne,

If by, "...the filter that attaches on the outside to my fresh water hose and the campsite water hookup" you mean the blue Camco filter -- see my comments above.

The Camco filters are not very effective, clog quickly, and are expensive (considering their lack of performance).

Have you attempted to contact PUR directly? My guess is that the existing filter has been replaced by a different part number. The Flow Pure FP10GKT is a good bet, but you may want to confirm with the mfr.

I would want to know the difference(s) between the two filters. In addition, you might request the performance data sheets so that you can see how effective the filter actually is. Does it remove/reduce all NSF 53 contaminants? None? Just 2 or 3?

~~~

[EDIT]: I see in your photo that the existing filter #FP10GT is only NSF 42 certified. That means it is essentially a "taste & odor" filter. Nothing wrong with that, but filters that meet both NSF 42 and 53 are readily available and do not cost much more. Are you sure the mfr is "PUR"? I'm wondering if another company did not intentionally use a misleading name. <Later> I did a Google search and found what appears to be the mfr -- it is NOT "PUR":
https://www.flowpur.com/html/rv_filters.html

I would be reluctant to do business with that company because they do not appear to be forthcoming with info about NSF ratings and performance specs. That, and the fact that they are cynically using the name Flow-Pur to confuse potential customers by implying that they have some connection with the "PUR" company.

Hopefully you can find something that is actually made by PUR or another reputable mfr that will be a direct replacement.

~~~

PUR makes good filters but if you intend to use it for drinking water you should confirm that any filter you are considering is both NSF 42 and 53 rated, and that it removes all (or most) of the contaminants listed in NSF 53.

Unfortunately, the NSF allows filter mfrs to claim "NSF 53" if the filter effectively removes/reduces even ONE (1) of the dozens of potential contaminants!

As a practical matter, almost all sources of potable water you are likely to come across are safe to drink, but a quality water filter is cheap insurance. If nothing else it will make the water taste better.

The above comments relate to your under-sink (or a faucet mount) filter.

You asked about the filter that attaches to your hose. See my post above (the one you quoted) for an inexpensive and effective alternative to the blue Camco sediment filters -- a standard 10" clear filter housing with a quality sediment filter.

[rollondown]

Use this as a resource or buy from them. We have several of their products, but several items I can buy cheaper in Lowes and assemble myself.
But this shows you options and how to.....
https://www.rvwaterfilterstore.com/mm5/