Yes it would be great to compare tester results against a lab. If you can provide me with an economic way of doing this a I’d love to hear from you. I'm no expert, but this comment from @MP-Mauro, someone who seems to know a lot about this topic, is extremely helpful. "Necessarily, a gadget like that must rely on some sort of shortcut and TOC is actually no more than a shortcut for bacteria and viruses; natural running waters can be reach in TOC especially if they are coming from a peat area because they contain many humic and fulvic acids (which are natural organic acids and therefore TOC increasers), but they may be microbiologically safe. Conversely, some 'clear' water may well be low in TOCs but may not be automatically clean from bacteria and viruses. This is because there is no portable device able to measure them directly." "TOC is probably the most practical proxy for that, but as in all proxy situations you run the risk of confronting both type of errors: judging clean a water that may have microbes and judging contaminated a water that has none (of course the first type of error is more serious). That said and taken with a grain of salt it could be better than nothing. Probably, just the filter is your best bet."
I used to carry a lot of water for a big run across the mountains. For the last five years I’ve just carried two 500ml bottles, some “iodine” tabs, a small filter pump and a half empty Robinson squash-mini. Stream or pond water into the “dirty” bottle, add the tabs, wait five minutes, filter the water across to the “clean” bottle and then add a little flavour. Run on with a bottle of potable water. It’s a bit faffy but weighs a lot less than a day reservoir of water. Full 500ml bottle plus the process kit weighs just under 1kg. No stomach problems and no running out of water, even on a hot day.
Iodine tabs or liquid used to be the standard way of purifying water for treks in Nepal or Pakistan and I used it a lot on my own hikes. But before we did a six month trek in the wilds of the US I was warned that, over time, the chemical builds up in the thyroid and can harm health. We switched to the two-bottle chlorine dioxide method plus filter bottle (and neckerchief for straining when needed) and were fine through the desert, Sierras and Cascades. Mind you it tasted like a warm swimming pool. The stuff used to be called Aqua Mira but now Lifesystems sell it in their range.
@@alwaysanotheradventure yes, iodine proper hasn’t been available for a while, for good reasons. There are alternatives now that are supposed to be as effective but less so on the end consumer. My pump also has a carbon “chemicals” filter, hence chemical first, not after - as is sometimes suggested! I must admit, on the very tops or when I’m drawing from a spring, I dodge the chemical stage and so far, so good 🤞
I think you've done a good job in promoting the filter rather than the tester! As you indicate, if you're confident with your filter, there's probably little point of the tester for regular use. If you get to keep that one, it'd be interesting to test the filtered water again as the filter gets older. I also wonder how the tester results compare to (hopefully) more accurate lab tests, but I guess you'd also have to follow standard procedures for sample collection for valid comparisons. It's all interesting stuff though but sad that even our upland streams are becoming dodgy.
You're right on both counts, and I'm pleased you found it interesting - I found the whole process fascinating. My initial thought was to do some sample tests and check their accuracy with a lab, but I couldn't find a way to do this cost effectively or practically. I even tried one of the channel members who works in a hospital lab in case there was a back-door way, but there's not. The filter does indeed come out well, and I'm relaxed about that because it was a review, not a promotion. Nevertheless, the people who make the tester are happy. I have a few filter brands so I might collect more water and test them in a video. My local plumber does a lot a houses with hill-water supplies and he plans to get one.
Looks like a handy gadget - I remember coming off the South Glen Shiel ridge once and seeing a deer carcass in the burn running down from the bealach we were descending from - pretty gross (melting eyeballs etc) and about 10 mins later met up with a group, one of whom was drinking from the burn without a filter. Makes me gag just thinking about it, and since then, I simply refuse to drink wild water.
I’m impressed with the quality of that filter and the water quality tester is a must have for hikers and bike packers. Would love to see you put some of the other popular filters to the test to see how they stack up. 🙌🏼
In my 20s I nievely thought that fast flowing mountain streams were safe to drink from. I was skiing in the Gorms and drank from water flowing beneath the snow. Within 24 hours I was very sick and within a week, after a blood test, was diagnosed with hepatitis. It took 12 months before I returned to "normal" health. We never had advanced filters then or digital test instruments but I certainly learned the value of being very cautious about where I drank from and gradually got used to the taste of iodine. Thanks for posting the video Simon. It shows how good today's filters are and I'm sure many would invest in the test kit if travelling in a risky area.
My first thought when you tested the flowing burn water was that the peaty water that we have in Scotland could well give a high reading for Total Organic Carbon despite being 'safe' to drink. But i see someone else has already covered that in another comment.
Necessarily, a gadget like that must rely on some sort of shortcut and TOC is actually no more than a shortcut for bacteria and viruses; natural running waters can be reach in TOC especially if they are coming from a peat area because they contain many humic and fulvic acids (which are natural organic acids and therefore TOC increasers), but they may be microbiologically safe. Conversely, some 'clear' water may well be low in TOCs but may not be automatically clean from bacteria and viruses. This is because there is no portable device able to measure them directly. TOC is probably the most practical proxy for that, but as in all proxy situations you run the risk of confronting both type of errors: judging clean a water that may have microbes and judging contaminated a water that has none (of course the first type of error is more serious). That said and taken with a grain of salt it could be better than nothing. Probably, just the filter is your best bet.
I used the same tester in a very similar way. A Cup of tea with just one dip of the tea bag in boiled water and allowed to go cold also gives a “POOR” score. Understanding that TOC is a non specific indicator or ORGANIC material is key here. WHO, EU and USA,UK have actual very strict limits for water from a tap post treatment ( from a treatment plant ). The tester is testing against these very stringent tests. In the woods, hills and other areas then the actual safe level of TOC is 500 and the unsafe level is 2000 ( I believe, don’t quote me ). The only thing this tester is really demonstrating is a non specific organic material in a source of Water. That can be Tea, Peat, possibly bacteria possibly a virus and against a “tap water” source then it would be perfect and if it’s not the water company or county council must be informed. In a stream in the highlands, Brecon Beacons or Yorkshire Dales then the test will about 100% show a “POOR” result. The filter from PURE CLEAR is excellent and you would need to Spend £200 to £300 to obtain a result similar and maybe to US DoD standard NFS P248 standards. Yet non of these will make the water as clean as tap water after standard UK water company treatment and the tester is NOT designed to test for that. It is a fantastic indication of organic matter in tap water for which there should always be near ZERO in your home mains supplied drinking water. Using this tester to show how a filter like Pure Clear gets to tap water standards is also great to see. Other filters like the usual 0.2micron hollow fibre filters will never clear a virus (0.02 in size ) , nor tea, nor peat in full. So a filter that gets a result much like tap water is very favourable indeed. The key requirements is avoid river water downstream from sewage works, there is no chance of me taking water from any river regardless of the filter, they ALL fail to clear heavy metals or and other contamination. Taking water from the most remote places from human and animal activity is important, the closer you get to humans the better “purification” is required. Understanding the TDS, COD, TOC and UV results and what they actually mean is key, other filters will likely give you a “POOR” result but the water is perfectly drinkable. Maybe a UV light and also chlorine may well Be required on occasion but if TDS is over 500ppm then I would avoid drinking it. (1000ppm isn’t safe and 2000ppm purification must occur ). I am about to test the PURE CLEAR LifeStraw as an inline filter for a 3ltr gravity system as my optimal mountain carry kit. The filter has certainly intrigued me for its very near TAP Water standard ( notwithstanding for clarity the other contamination possibilities of course ). I do know an individual that was significantly poisoned by taking water from a source close to industrial sites that discharged into a river. This is an extreme example of where no hand held filter / “purifier” is certified to clear. Water is an inorganic substance, testing for organic material ( dead plants for instance ) TOC etc etc like Tea, Peat, bacteria, virus and others is “easy” but it’s not specific.
TDS are not necessarily a problem. Many places around the world have high level of TDS (so-called 'hard water' areas) and there can often be health benefits for drinking tap water with higher levels of magnesium for instance. Those of us who live in 'soft water' areas like much of Scotland need to supplement with such minerals because we are not getting them in our drinking water. I would be happy that in places like the UK with strict water treatment standards that the levels of TDS pose no hazard our health.
Really interesting video. It would be great to see a variety of filters tested. Also be interesting to see a lab test of the device as you only have their word for it that it works! (I'm a bit of a cynic 😊)
I really wanted to compare the tester against lab results - it was the first thing I considered (equally cynical) - but I couldn't make it work financially. I'll keep looking for somewhere because you're right, this assumes the tester is accurate.
Fascinating! I've never felt the need to filter water in Scotland (& have never been sick) but I think that has changed after watching this video! I might well get a water quality tester like this one but I would really appreciate you doing a test on all the filters you can get hold of and show how well they work. I think the best way to use the tester would be directly in the source so that you don't contaminate a water container unnecessarily. Did you wash the tester between your tests? In practice that would be something we would need to do.
I initially said "no thanks" to the offer to try out this tester, but was asked "how do you know your filter works"? That was quite a good point so I agreed and was genuinely surprised. But please read the pinned comment, because the peat in the hill & river water might be registering as organic content. That said, I really have heard of a few people getting sick on the WHW.
Great content as always! It would be interesting to find a benchmark for the tester against other ones, or even against a lab (very difficult i expect).
Really interesting. How often does it need to be calibrated after initial calibration. Is contamination of tester an issue between testing samples. Thanks
Once a week calibration in regular use. I suspect cross contamination can be an issue in heavily polluted water but it’s easy to clean in running water. I had to use a cotton bud after that really nasty stuff.
Like others, I thought seeing the peaty water test badly that this tester is not necessarily testing for real nasties, just a rough proxy. Assuming no one offers you free lab testing on the back of this video then maybe interesting to follow up with a chat with a water quality expert, and maybe get into exactly how those filters work?
I thing there is not a better and as cheep filter than "Drinksafe Waterbag Supalite" on www.drinksafe-systems.co.uk/products.php Even filter pesticides and anthrax!
I wanted to know for swimmers and dog owners too. Here’s the reply. My interpretation is - “probably but we’re not completely sure”. ************ Thank you for the question! Cyanobacteria, being a type of bacteria, can indeed be represented by TOC and COD levels. However, we need to conduct further experiments to determine if the toxins produced by cyanobacteria can be detected through specific parameter responses. Additionally, we recommend cleaning the probes after testing dirty or contaminated water. Failing to do so may result in contamination or corrosion of the probes, which could impact its accuracy in future use. I'll let you know when we have further progress. I appreciate you doing this for your audience!
Yes it would be great to compare tester results against a lab. If you can provide me with an economic way of doing this a I’d love to hear from you. I'm no expert, but this comment from @MP-Mauro, someone who seems to know a lot about this topic, is extremely helpful.
"Necessarily, a gadget like that must rely on some sort of shortcut and TOC is actually no more than a shortcut for bacteria and viruses; natural running waters can be reach in TOC especially if they are coming from a peat area because they contain many humic and fulvic acids (which are natural organic acids and therefore TOC increasers), but they may be microbiologically safe. Conversely, some 'clear' water may well be low in TOCs but may not be automatically clean from bacteria and viruses. This is because there is no portable device able to measure them directly."
"TOC is probably the most practical proxy for that, but as in all proxy situations you run the risk of confronting both type of errors: judging clean a water that may have microbes and judging contaminated a water that has none (of course the first type of error is more serious).
That said and taken with a grain of salt it could be better than nothing. Probably, just the filter is your best bet."
That sounds reasonable! That's why we test for TOC, COD, TDS, and UV275 to make it reliable! Thanks for the video!
I used to carry a lot of water for a big run across the mountains. For the last five years I’ve just carried two 500ml bottles, some “iodine” tabs, a small filter pump and a half empty Robinson squash-mini. Stream or pond water into the “dirty” bottle, add the tabs, wait five minutes, filter the water across to the “clean” bottle and then add a little flavour. Run on with a bottle of potable water. It’s a bit faffy but weighs a lot less than a day reservoir of water. Full 500ml bottle plus the process kit weighs just under 1kg. No stomach problems and no running out of water, even on a hot day.
Iodine tabs or liquid used to be the standard way of purifying water for treks in Nepal or Pakistan and I used it a lot on my own hikes. But before we did a six month trek in the wilds of the US I was warned that, over time, the chemical builds up in the thyroid and can harm health.
We switched to the two-bottle chlorine dioxide method plus filter bottle (and neckerchief for straining when needed) and were fine through the desert, Sierras and Cascades. Mind you it tasted like a warm swimming pool.
The stuff used to be called Aqua Mira but now Lifesystems sell it in their range.
@@alwaysanotheradventure yes, iodine proper hasn’t been available for a while, for good reasons. There are alternatives now that are supposed to be as effective but less so on the end consumer. My pump also has a carbon “chemicals” filter, hence chemical first, not after - as is sometimes suggested! I must admit, on the very tops or when I’m drawing from a spring, I dodge the chemical stage and so far, so good 🤞
I think you've done a good job in promoting the filter rather than the tester! As you indicate, if you're confident with your filter, there's probably little point of the tester for regular use. If you get to keep that one, it'd be interesting to test the filtered water again as the filter gets older. I also wonder how the tester results compare to (hopefully) more accurate lab tests, but I guess you'd also have to follow standard procedures for sample collection for valid comparisons. It's all interesting stuff though but sad that even our upland streams are becoming dodgy.
You're right on both counts, and I'm pleased you found it interesting - I found the whole process fascinating.
My initial thought was to do some sample tests and check their accuracy with a lab, but I couldn't find a way to do this cost effectively or practically. I even tried one of the channel members who works in a hospital lab in case there was a back-door way, but there's not.
The filter does indeed come out well, and I'm relaxed about that because it was a review, not a promotion. Nevertheless, the people who make the tester are happy. I have a few filter brands so I might collect more water and test them in a video.
My local plumber does a lot a houses with hill-water supplies and he plans to get one.
Looks like a handy gadget - I remember coming off the South Glen Shiel ridge once and seeing a deer carcass in the burn running down from the bealach we were descending from - pretty gross (melting eyeballs etc) and about 10 mins later met up with a group, one of whom was drinking from the burn without a filter. Makes me gag just thinking about it, and since then, I simply refuse to drink wild water.
Super! A filter test would be great to see.
I’m impressed with the quality of that filter and the water quality tester is a must have for hikers and bike packers. Would love to see you put some of the other popular filters to the test to see how they stack up. 🙌🏼
Spectacular presentation man, absolutely amazing work! Your channel is just amazing!
Thanks a ton!
Agreed. This is good to know information
In my 20s I nievely thought that fast flowing mountain streams were safe to drink from.
I was skiing in the Gorms and drank from water flowing beneath the snow. Within 24 hours I was very sick and within a week, after a blood test, was diagnosed with hepatitis. It took 12 months before I returned to "normal" health. We never had advanced filters then or digital test instruments but I certainly learned the value of being very cautious about where I drank from and gradually got used to the taste of iodine.
Thanks for posting the video Simon. It shows how good today's filters are and I'm sure many would invest in the test kit if travelling in a risky area.
My first thought when you tested the flowing burn water was that the peaty water that we have in Scotland could well give a high reading for Total Organic Carbon despite being 'safe' to drink.
But i see someone else has already covered that in another comment.
It’s a great point - peat being organic carbon!
I enjoy the fact that your videos are so useful and inspiring. Further, your methodology is quite sound. Kudos!
Thank you very much Robert
Great video Simon, it would great if you did a follow up video checking the water quality of other filters.
I have a few filters - I’ll see if I can get a few more.
Necessarily, a gadget like that must rely on some sort of shortcut and TOC is actually no more than a shortcut for bacteria and viruses; natural running waters can be reach in TOC especially if they are coming from a peat area because they contain many humic and fulvic acids (which are natural organic acids and therefore TOC increasers), but they may be microbiologically safe. Conversely, some 'clear' water may well be low in TOCs but may not be automatically clean from bacteria and viruses. This is because there is no portable device able to measure them directly.
TOC is probably the most practical proxy for that, but as in all proxy situations you run the risk of confronting both type of errors: judging clean a water that may have microbes and judging contaminated a water that has none (of course the first type of error is more serious).
That said and taken with a grain of salt it could be better than nothing. Probably, just the filter is your best bet.
Wow - where were you when I needed an expert! Thank you so much for this - I'm going to cut and paste it at the top of the comments. Thanks again.
@@alwaysanotheradventure well, I am just a proxy of an expert :) I just happened to study environmental engineering...
I used the same tester in a very similar way. A Cup of tea with just one dip of the tea bag in boiled water and allowed to go cold also gives a “POOR” score.
Understanding that TOC is a non specific indicator or ORGANIC material is key here. WHO, EU and USA,UK have actual very strict limits for water from a tap post treatment ( from a treatment plant ). The tester is testing against these very stringent tests.
In the woods, hills and other areas then the actual safe level of TOC is 500 and the unsafe level is 2000 ( I believe, don’t quote me ). The only thing this tester is really demonstrating is a non specific organic material in a source of
Water. That can be Tea, Peat, possibly bacteria possibly a virus and against a “tap water” source then it would be perfect and if it’s not the water company or county council must be informed. In a stream in the highlands, Brecon Beacons or Yorkshire Dales then the test will about 100% show a “POOR” result.
The filter from PURE CLEAR is excellent and you would need to Spend £200 to £300 to obtain a result similar and maybe to US DoD standard NFS P248 standards.
Yet non of these will make the water as clean as tap water after standard UK water company treatment and the tester is NOT designed to test for that. It is a fantastic indication of organic matter in tap water for which there should always be near ZERO in your home mains supplied drinking water.
Using this tester to show how a filter like Pure Clear gets to tap water standards is also great to see. Other filters like the usual 0.2micron hollow fibre filters will never clear a virus (0.02 in size ) , nor tea, nor peat in full. So a filter that gets a result much like tap water is very favourable indeed.
The key requirements is avoid river water downstream from sewage works, there is no chance of me taking water from any river regardless of the filter, they ALL fail to clear heavy metals or and other contamination.
Taking water from the most remote places from human and animal activity is important, the closer you get to humans the better “purification” is required.
Understanding the TDS, COD, TOC and UV results and what they actually mean is key, other filters will likely give you a “POOR” result but the water is perfectly drinkable. Maybe a UV light and also chlorine may well Be required on occasion but if TDS is over 500ppm then I would avoid drinking it. (1000ppm isn’t safe and 2000ppm purification must occur ).
I am about to test the PURE CLEAR LifeStraw as an inline filter for a 3ltr gravity system as my optimal mountain carry kit. The filter has certainly intrigued me for its very near TAP Water standard ( notwithstanding for clarity the other contamination possibilities of course ).
I do know an individual that was significantly poisoned by taking water from a source close to industrial sites that discharged into a river. This is an extreme example of where no hand held filter / “purifier” is certified to clear.
Water is an inorganic substance, testing for organic material ( dead plants for instance ) TOC etc etc like Tea, Peat, bacteria, virus and others is “easy” but it’s not specific.
I noticed 13% of TDS on your tap water. As shown in the manual, Tds did harm us if used long term.
You reviewed the product excellently.
As always❤
Thanks - I’ll check that again!
TDS are not necessarily a problem. Many places around the world have high level of TDS (so-called 'hard water' areas) and there can often be health benefits for drinking tap water with higher levels of magnesium for instance. Those of us who live in 'soft water' areas like much of Scotland need to supplement with such minerals because we are not getting them in our drinking water. I would be happy that in places like the UK with strict water treatment standards that the levels of TDS pose no hazard our health.
Great video great filter love to see how the other filters fair!
Really interesting video. It would be great to see a variety of filters tested. Also be interesting to see a lab test of the device as you only have their word for it that it works! (I'm a bit of a cynic 😊)
I really wanted to compare the tester against lab results - it was the first thing I considered (equally cynical) - but I couldn't make it work financially. I'll keep looking for somewhere because you're right, this assumes the tester is accurate.
Fascinating! I've never felt the need to filter water in Scotland (& have never been sick) but I think that has changed after watching this video! I might well get a water quality tester like this one but I would really appreciate you doing a test on all the filters you can get hold of and show how well they work.
I think the best way to use the tester would be directly in the source so that you don't contaminate a water container unnecessarily. Did you wash the tester between your tests? In practice that would be something we would need to do.
I initially said "no thanks" to the offer to try out this tester, but was asked "how do you know your filter works"? That was quite a good point so I agreed and was genuinely surprised. But please read the pinned comment, because the peat in the hill & river water might be registering as organic content. That said, I really have heard of a few people getting sick on the WHW.
Great content as always! It would be interesting to find a benchmark for the tester against other ones, or even against a lab (very difficult i expect).
I should have mentioned this in the video, because a lab comparison was my first thought - I couldn't find one that would do it economically.
Really interesting. How often does it need to be calibrated after initial calibration. Is contamination of tester an issue between testing samples. Thanks
Once a week calibration in regular use. I suspect cross contamination can be an issue in heavily polluted water but it’s easy to clean in running water. I had to use a cotton bud after that really nasty stuff.
Like others, I thought seeing the peaty water test badly that this tester is not necessarily testing for real nasties, just a rough proxy. Assuming no one offers you free lab testing on the back of this video then maybe interesting to follow up with a chat with a water quality expert, and maybe get into exactly how those filters work?
That filter is remarkable! However, I'd have to be pretty certain (or desperate) to drink any water not confirmed as OK.
Brilliant Simon - how did you know that I needed a new filter ( using a Katadyn BeFree at the moment but this looks great ) - Warren
It would be interesting to compare the test results to lab test results.
Agreed - it’s the most frequent comment. And my first thought. I couldn’t find an economic way to do that.
Not likely to be perfect, but probably far better than nothing. I'll have to see if whether it's available in Canada.
Would this tester be able to pick up the toxins secreted by blue-green algae? I don't think filters like the sawyer will filter this out.
I thing there is not a better and as cheep filter than "Drinksafe Waterbag Supalite" on www.drinksafe-systems.co.uk/products.php
Even filter pesticides and anthrax!
I’ve asked the makers
@@alwaysanotheradventure thanks that would be really appreciated.
I wanted to know for swimmers and dog owners too. Here’s the reply. My interpretation is - “probably but we’re not completely sure”.
************
Thank you for the question!
Cyanobacteria, being a type of bacteria, can indeed be represented by TOC and COD levels. However, we need to conduct further experiments to determine if the toxins produced by cyanobacteria can be detected through specific parameter responses.
Additionally, we recommend cleaning the probes after testing dirty or contaminated water. Failing to do so may result in contamination or corrosion of the probes, which could impact its accuracy in future use.
I'll let you know when we have further progress.
I appreciate you doing this for your audience!
@@alwaysanotheradventure thanks Simon, I'll be watching this with interest.
Can you post a link to the filter?
The link is in the description
Not the gadget you are reviewing I meant the bottle with the filter inside. 👍
@@timrichardson2it's the 'pure clear' collapsible bottle squeeze filter. About £30 - £40.