Combined carbon filtration + water softening system in 2 tanks versus 1 tank

Users who are viewing this thread

John Arbuckle

New Member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
California
I am looking at whole house filtration and have noticed that some people get a single "2 in 1" carbon + water softening tank system to save space, as opposed to linking 2 separate tanks in series.

Have any of you had experience with these types of systems?

The specific brand I am looking at is the Charger Pro Series (chargerwater com) from their Phoenix branch. I think the company manufactures both separate tanks as well as combined systems. Calling the manufacturer just gets me a voice mail.

Outside of the obvious space saving advantage for single tank systems, and easier maintenance for the 2-tank systems, are there any advantages or disadvantages to either approach? Do the single tank systems work as effectively and do they have different maintenance requirements?
 
Last edited:

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
The answer to the question is extremely complex and time consuming and could fill an hour long debate but I will break it down to a simple answer without hurting anyones feelings... like that is ever possible.

Mixing carbon and softening resin inside the same tank with a divider is effective in so much as the carbon quantity or the softening capacity will have to suffer.
Since most systems don't use dividers for a multitude of reasons the combining of carbon and resin in to the same mixed chamber is only somewhat effective as the carbon and resin become an amalgam giving the carbon very little effectiveness. The resins effectiveness seems to be just fine as it is typically the majority media. Many mixed medias can be done but this is not one of them. A few companies source special carbons that do stay separated but these carbons are not very effective and require very frequent changeouts. Another alternative is stacked tanks. This has the advantage of completely separating the medias, using different size tanks so as to match the backwash rates (resin requires less GPM per ft2 than typical GAC). The drawback is a taller unit and a limited carbon bed (typical is .5 ft3.)
The best way to go is two tanks, two medias. Keep them separated, and... many companies do this but they save cost by using upflow or non backwashing carbon tanks. Again, this is a common mistake that can work a lot of the time, then again it can fail just as often and requires considerable understanding of the application. I deal with all of these different unit designs. what I installed at my own house is to tanks controlled by one valve and medias specifically designed for the application. This design works on must municipal supplies but is also a little more costly than other water treatment methods.

So to answer your question, don't go for the "all in one" systems. They are not very effective, the do not offer long enough service life, and they may be difficult to service.
 

Dogwell

Member
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Arizona
Hi Ditttohead, can you please help me? We will be moving from a well in MD to city water in Mesa AZ. I spoke to a few companies re water softening and am getting conflicting advice. I truly do not know what the best system for us will be. Should we also get a carbon filter? One company says no but suggests a big blue if we really want it, another has the combo you advices against, and a third has the separate tanks but suggest that the resin / media / valve will only last 5 years in Phoenix so it's cheaper overall to rent from them instead. Any help you can give is much appreciated!


The answer to the question is extremely complex and time consuming and could fill an hour long debate but I will break it down to a simple answer without hurting anyones feelings... like that is ever possible.

Mixing carbon and softening resin inside the same tank with a divider is effective in so much as the carbon quantity or the softening capacity will have to suffer.
Since most systems don't use dividers for a multitude of reasons the combining of carbon and resin in to the same mixed chamber is only somewhat effective as the carbon and resin become an amalgam giving the carbon very little effectiveness. The resins effectiveness seems to be just fine as it is typically the majority media. Many mixed medias can be done but this is not one of them. A few companies source special carbons that do stay separated but these carbons are not very effective and require very frequent changeouts. Another alternative is stacked tanks. This has the advantage of completely separating the medias, using different size tanks so as to match the backwash rates (resin requires less GPM per ft2 than typical GAC). The drawback is a taller unit and a limited carbon bed (typical is .5 ft3.)
The best way to go is two tanks, two medias. Keep them separated, and... many companies do this but they save cost by using upflow or non backwashing carbon tanks. Again, this is a common mistake that can work a lot of the time, then again it can fail just as often and requires considerable understanding of the application. I deal with all of these different unit designs. what I installed at my own house is to tanks controlled by one valve and medias specifically designed for the application. This design works on must municipal supplies but is also a little more costly than other water treatment methods.

So to answer your question, don't go for the "all in one" systems. They are not very effective, the do not offer long enough service life, and they may be difficult to service.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
A Big blue size whole house carbon filter is not recommended. It is simply too small. It will technically work but it is a bad design.

Separate backwashing carbon is a good design, fairly simple and inexpensive.

Are you a DIY'r or are you going to have someone install/maintain the system for you?

Mixing the medias is not overly effective.

Renting can be an excellent choice if the price is reasonable and they rebed the carbon every 5 years at max, not when t shows chlorine passing through 20 years later. Renting basically makes the unit maintenance free. Any repairs are included in the rental so you do not have to worry about any future work. This will likely be more expensive than owning but the peace of mind knowing that you will never have a repair bill may be worth it.

Be aware, some rental agreements ave automatic price increases annually, long term contracts with auto renewal, and expensive salt contracts.

ideally you want a non increasing contract, non auto renewing terms ( a 3 year intitial term is understandable since that is about how long it will tanke for these companies to break even and maybe make a tiny bit of profit), and you should make sure the system is relatively efficient and either includes the salt in the price or you can buy your own salt. Some companies will rent the units cheap then increase the salt price massively...
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks