Desperate need for help with Whole House Water Treatment...

Users who are viewing this thread

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
Hello..this may be long :) as i have been looking or a forum like this for a LONG time...I live in East Central Illinois, on a well, and have some pretty bad water...Small town with no one that really knows anything about proper water treatment, unless you consider Culligan that :-(... Long story short...I ended up going with a company online "Crystal Quest Water Systems" that i thought would help me with my issues...We spoke/emailed back and forth a lot...I sent them my water analysis etc...My biggest complaints with my water is, Iron and high Arsenic levels...I ended up going with a system that they recommended that has a 20" sediment filter, then 2 tanks with fleck 5600sxt heads ( one is their whole house filtration tank, the other is the arsenic removal tank) then it runs through another 20" solid carbon cartridge...I have my water softener in line after the first 20" sediment filter..and a POU RO system under the kitchen sink with a 98% rejection DOW membrane..Once hooked up, everything worked great...water was clear and clean, and after sending a sample away the arsenic levels were 0...this was all pretty short lived...my water gradually turned back to looking pretty dingy when a bathtub was ran, and the arsenic levels started to creep up again...I feel like i was just sold what they would make the best bang for their buck on...after doing more research, i think i can come up with my own system with the professionals help here...I will attach a screen print of my water analysis from the Illinois Water Survey and will also give you a snippit of what i currently have hooked up now...I am hoping with suggestions from you all i can get back to clear/clean water...I am hoping to be able to use the heads/tanks etc that i currently have and make a media change or additions as needed...I have been reading up on the Katalox Light media and it seems like it may fit the bill for what i am needing...I am fine to do this in stages etc...Please let me know what suggestions you may have..

Here is the system that i currently have in place:
http://www.crystalquest.com/how arsenic water filters work.htm


I have attached my water report..this is untreated water from a yard hydrant:

water.JPG



Thank you,
Chad Wright
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,749
Reaction score
4,400
Points
113
Location
IL
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/arsenic.cfm says the maximum level of arsenic permitted in drinking water is 0.010 mg/L (milligrams per liter) which is 10 which is micrograms per Liter. You have 52.62 micrograms per Liter.

I am not familiar with the arsenic filter that you already have. Its picture looks like a pretty intense system. It could go between the Katalox Light tank and the softener maybe? I did some more looking at the picture in your link. The KDF-85 media, which is the one that would deal with iron and sulfur, I think, seems way too small for the job.

So your idea of adding the backwashing filter with the Katalox Light media, then your arsenic filter, followed by a big water softener for your almost 20 grains of hardness looks good to me. I see that your arsenic filter has a sediment filter cartridge at the beginning. That is probably good after the Katalox Light (KL) filter, but I think it may have been inadequate being the first thing in line. Katalox Light also treats arsenic too. So if your existing filter degrades, do you fix it or take it out of line? What I would suggest is that when you plumb in the new filter, that you put a boiler drain in line so that you could sample the water out of the first filter before that goes on. Maybe have another tap before the softener as an optional place to pull drinking water. Plus each tap with a garden hose thread also serves as a handy place to screw a pressure gauge.

You said "I have my water softener in line after the first 20" sediment filter". Hmm... maybe that order is OK. Maybe it is better. Is that what the filter sellers suggested?


I suspect that you have some sulfur smell too. The Katalox Light is good for that, and then your existing filter could do some final touches on that I guess.

If your existing arsenic filter were to fail, I might think about bypassing it. Based on the water report from after the KL filter, you might just avoid drinking the water that has not gone through the DI system. Or the KL-filtered water may be low arsenic.

Nice looking water report. Where did you get the testing done? Nice pH on your feed water.

I speak with very limited experience. I am not a pro. My thoughts on the subject change the more I think about it or read more.
 
Last edited:

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
Thanks for your reply..im thinking your incorrect maybe on the arsenic... 0.010 mg/L is = to 10 ug/L according to what i have found online...I have 52 ug/L.

I think what is happening is the iron is contaminating all the media in the filter tanks as well as my softener...I am wanting to get the iron addressed and then relook at the arsenic situation...I was thinking of a rebed of Katalox Light in one of the 10x54 tanks may be a viable option for this part of the situation...thoughts?
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
A little more info as well...original well report states well is a drilled well 203' deep with the static level at 96' and pumped 50 gpm for 3 hours with no issues...so amount of water isnt an issue..lol..just need to get the quality fixed..

Chad
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/arsenic.cfm says the maximum level of arsenic permitted in drinking water is 0.010 mg/L (milligrams per liter) which is 10 which is micrograms per Liter. You have 52.62 micrograms per Liter.

I am not familiar with the arsenic filter that you already have. Its picture looks like a pretty intense system. It could go between the Katalox Light tank and the softener maybe? I did some more looking at the picture in your link. The KDF-85 media, which is the one that would deal with iron and sulfur, I think, seems way too small for the job.

So your idea of adding the backwashing filter with the Katalox Light media, then your arsenic filter, followed by a big water softener for your almost 20 grains of hardness looks good to me. I see that your arsenic filter has a sediment filter cartridge at the beginning. That is probably good after the Katalox Light (KL) filter, but I think it may have been inadequate being the first thing in line. Katalox Light also treats arsenic too. So if your existing filter degrades, do you fix it or take it out of line? What I would suggest is that when you plumb in the new filter, that you put a boiler drain in line so that you could sample the water out of the first filter before that goes on. Maybe have another tap before the softener as an optional place to pull drinking water. Plus each tap with a garden hose thread also serves as a handy place to screw a pressure gauge.

You said "I have my water softener in line after the first 20" sediment filter". Hmm... maybe that order is OK. Maybe it is better. Is that what the filter sellers suggested?


I suspect that you have some sulfur smell too. The Katalox Light is good for that, and then your existing filter could do some final touches on that I guess.

If your existing arsenic filter were to fail, I might think about bypassing it. Based on the water report from after the KL filter, you might just avoid drinking the water that has not gone through the DI system. Or the KL-filtered water may be low arsenic.

Nice looking water report. Where did you get the testing done? Nice pH on your feed water.

I speak with very limited experience. I am not a pro. My thoughts on the subject change the more I think about it or read more.



That water report was done by the illinois water survey at the University of Illinois..

the order of "filters/tanks etc" right now is:
20" pleated sediment filter
Water softener
whole house backwashing filter (kdf85 and other media)
Arsenic backwashing filter
20" solid carbon filter..

My thought would be this:
whole house backwashing filter (rebedded with Katalox Light) not sure if an oxidizer is needed or not
current arsenic backwasing filter
Water Softener
20" solid carbon filter..


From reading it seems the member here named "Ditttohead" is very well versed on the Katalox Light media...I am hoping he will chime in and help me out as well...This is all new to me, but i have researched a bunch...I just want to see the day that we can run a CLEAR tub of water for my 2 little girls...

Chad
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,749
Reaction score
4,400
Points
113
Location
IL
Cool. You seem to have studied the right things.

Make sure your pleated filter is polypropylene and not cellulose. I doubt that it is cellulose, but it is worth checking.

A clear tub is not such a high standard. But I think you plan will get you that plus more.

I don't know if the solid carbon filter adds (removes) much in your case. Those are usually for organic chemicals and chlorine. I presume you have a deep well, so it is not going to be contaminated with organics. Solid carbon filters tend to have more backpressure from what I have read. I have one filter housing that I leave empty. If you decided against using a filter, then you might consider that. Or you might consider putting in a 1 micron filter into that last housing.

Do use silicone grease on the O-rings when changing filter elements. If you don't have a bypass, do have one or more spare O-rings since a bad O-rings would shut you down.


That water report was done by the illinois water survey at the University of Illinois..
Cool. Did they come take a survey on their own, or can somebody send them a sample with a fee to get a test done? Nice comprehensive test. What was the cost and completion time? Some tests via a county don't even provide hardness data let alone sulfur and sulfate.
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
Cool. Did they come take a survey on their own, or can somebody send them a sample with a fee to get a test done? Nice comprehensive test. What was the cost and completion time? Some tests via a county don't even provide hardness data let alone sulfur and sulfate.

I actually dont think they are doing it anymore...the way it worked when i done it was you send them $80 and they overnight you a styrofoam cooler with a few bottles etc in it adn instructions...you do what the instructions say and overnight it back to them...they done the test and i got the results in about 8 weeks or so..

Where in IL are you located?

Chad
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Katalox light can be used for your application and it will have many other benefits. Unfortunately I am assisting our warehouse today, I will try to reply with some details tomorrow.
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
Katalox light can be used for your application and it will have many other benefits. Unfortunately I am assisting our warehouse today, I will try to reply with some details tomorrow.

No problem at all..thank you for the response...I am not in a hurry and just want to make sure i do it the correct way this time...thanks
Chad
 

_John_

Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Points
8
Location
Texas
Ditto on dittohead. I like katalox a lot, and with your iron being high, it may be effective by itself for removing your arsenic (to below 10 ppb levels). With that high of iron you should get some coprecipitation and some surface area for surface adsorption of As from the filtered iron oxide (that's trapped on your katalox media bed).

Iron injection (unless high enough) ahead of manganese dioxide bed is a common municipal level strategy for As removal. (at least as of finishing my graduate studies in 2010.) Your high iron may be a blessing in disguise as it will help get As out.

I'd probably still want my drinking water going through an RO after that if it were my water though.

quick article on the technology of Iron/As removal: http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/arsenictradeshow/arsenic.cfm?action=Oxidation
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
Ditto on dittohead. I like katalox a lot, and with your iron being high, it may be effective by itself for removing your arsenic (to below 10 ppb levels). With that high of iron you should get some coprecipitation and some surface area for surface adsorption of As from the filtered iron oxide (that's trapped on your katalox media bed).

Iron injection (unless high enough) ahead of manganese dioxide bed is a common municipal level strategy for As removal. (at least as of finishing my graduate studies in 2010.) Your high iron may be a blessing in disguise as it will help get As out.

I'd probably still want my drinking water going through an RO after that if it were my water though.

quick article on the technology of Iron/As removal: http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/arsenictradeshow/arsenic.cfm?action=Oxidation

Thanks..I do plan on only drinking the RO water as that is all we drink now...We use it for all of our drinking and cooking needs and the RO is plumbed into my refridgerator water and ice maker...It would just be a NICE piece of mind to know it is gone or at asubstantially lower level before it ever gets to the RO membrane ;-)...the Iron is wrecking havoc on my media beds currently so once i get it taken care of im hoping the Kalatox helps everything...I have 2 (10x54) 1.5cu/ft backwash filters now that have other media in them..If it would work for everything, i wouldnt be apposed running Kalatox in both of them..lol...Im just tired and mentally drained with this water issue since there is NO ONE around my area that has a clue...soooo glad i found this forum...

Chad
 
Last edited:

_John_

Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Points
8
Location
Texas
Katalox should remove all that iron and 80-90% of the As. It's a great iron/sediment media.

Phosphorus and silicates can interfere with the adsorption reaction (you should be relatively ok at your levels) and make the actual removal efficiency hard to "guarantee".
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
Katalox should remove all that iron and 80-90% of the As. It's a great iron/sediment media.

Phosphorus and silicates can interfere with the adsorption reaction (you should be relatively ok at your levels) and make the actual removal efficiency hard to "guarantee".

So you are thinking my phosphorus and silicate values are too high for the katalox to work? Is there a way to get those values in check in advance of the katalox?
 

_John_

Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Points
8
Location
Texas
I would think you should be relatively good to go, just throwing it out there that those can make actual As removal efficiency not as easy to accurately predict.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Agreed, it should work well, but... too many variables to make any assumptions on this one. The order of equipment is critical too. Certain medias have higher efficiencies and capabilities with hardness than not.
 

ChadWright

New Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Illinois
I guess one good thing from what i have been reading is that you need iron levels to be 20x the arsenic levels for katalox to effectively remove the Arsenic. My Iron is 5.28 mg/L which is 5280 ug/L.. My Arsenic level is 52.62 ug/L so if my poor math skills are correct...Im close to 100x the iron levels vs. Arsenic..
 
Last edited:

Cruisinforgold

New Member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
I guess one good thing from what i have been reading is that you need iron levels to be 20x the arsenic levels for katalox to effectively remove the Arsenic. My Iron is 5.28 mg/L which is 5280 ug/L.. My Arsenic level is 52.62 ug/L so if my poor math skills are correct...Im close to 100x the iron levels vs. Arsenic..

I know this post was some 6 months ago, but I'm curiouse if you've gone forward in trying to mitigate this issue.

I'm getting ready to treat some minor issue with a water softener (maganese, hardness and odor) but my testing also revealed greater than MCL of Arsenic at 36 ug/l vs 10 ug/l requirement (NOTE: This standard was reduced from 50 ug/l in 2001 to 10 ug/l, so my well was ok until the standard got revised).

In any case, from my research you need to understand whether you are treating for As III vs V. this requires a special speciation test by your water testing company (i.e. which I would recommend only Federal/State approved labs). As V is more easily remedied than is As III.

Lucky me - my As speciation results were As V 6 ug/l and As III 32 ug/l. Thus I have the harder As III to remove.

My research to-date notes that you don't need Whole-house remediation for As levels as it's only a hazard for drinking/cooking waters. Using a whole-house/POE your applying full-time remidiation resources to somewhere around 2-4% of the demand flow.
Common Household Uses Of Drinking Water (Gallons per Capita per Day)
  • Bathing: 20 gpc
  • Toilet Flushing: 24 gpcd
  • Lawn Waering and Pools: 25 gpcd
  • Laundry: 8.5 gpcd
  • Dishwasher: 4 gpcd
  • Car Washing: 2.5 gpcd
  • Drinking and Cooking: 2 gpcd
  • Garbage Disposal: 1 gpcd

Further whole-house remediation for As III levels is a very hard thing to-do without jacking up the initial install and yearly costs.
Several issues drive this:
  • Because you don't get decent contact time between the media (ferrous oxide) and the water flow - which needs to be on the order of multiple minutes.
  • Because of the volume of water (the other 96 to 98%) flow you use up the media that much faster. More cost due to more frequent media replacement or worse yet - no media placement and the levels then quickly rise back up and you spent all that money to effectively do nothing for the cooking/drinking component.
But which way did you choose to go - and why?
 

_John_

Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Points
8
Location
Texas
I know this post was some 6 months ago, but I'm curiouse if you've gone forward in trying to mitigate this issue.

I'm getting ready to treat some minor issue with a water softener (maganese, hardness and odor) but my testing also revealed greater than MCL of Arsenic at 36 ug/l vs 10 ug/l requirement (NOTE: This standard was reduced from 50 ug/l in 2001 to 10 ug/l, so my well was ok until the standard got revised).

In any case, from my research you need to understand whether you are treating for As III vs V. this requires a special speciation test by your water testing company (i.e. which I would recommend only Federal/State approved labs). As V is more easily remedied than is As III.

Lucky me - my As speciation results were As V 6 ug/l and As III 32 ug/l. Thus I have the harder As III to remove.

My research to-date notes that you don't need Whole-house remediation for As levels as it's only a hazard for drinking/cooking waters. Using a whole-house/POE your applying full-time remidiation resources to somewhere around 2-4% of the demand flow.
Common Household Uses Of Drinking Water (Gallons per Capita per Day)
  • Bathing: 20 gpc
  • Toilet Flushing: 24 gpcd
  • Lawn Waering and Pools: 25 gpcd
  • Laundry: 8.5 gpcd
  • Dishwasher: 4 gpcd
  • Car Washing: 2.5 gpcd
  • Drinking and Cooking: 2 gpcd
  • Garbage Disposal: 1 gpcd
Further whole-house remediation for As III levels is a very hard thing to-do without jacking up the initial install and yearly costs.
Several issues drive this:
  • Because you don't get decent contact time between the media (ferrous oxide) and the water flow - which needs to be on the order of multiple minutes.
  • Because of the volume of water (the other 96 to 98%) flow you use up the media that much faster. More cost due to more frequent media replacement or worse yet - no media placement and the levels then quickly rise back up and you spent all that money to effectively do nothing for the cooking/drinking component.
But which way did you choose to go - and why?

MnO2 medias oxidize As(III) to As(V), while also oxidizing iron and forming an iron oxide precipitate that is then trapped on the media. This iron oxide formed adsorbs As (and depending on the actual iron mineral formed, should actually adsorb both, though III's sorption is weaker).

I admit that my reading of literature has diminished since I graduated school, but coprecipitation (adding iron to the water to form an iron/As mineral and sorption surface) followed by filtration, iron injection ahead of an MnO2 bed, and anion exchange resins were the most talked about from papers I'd read (at the municipal level). On small levels I've seen products that use straight amorphous iron oxyhydroxide (ferrihydrite) in a filter bed for the removal of As. I've also seen products impregnated with the ferrihydrite (anion beads) for the removal of As, as raw ferrihydrite likes to recrystallize to goethite or hematite if you leave it in water (both of which have a much lower sorption capacity for As and other anions such as phosphate). Dittohead here probably knows more than I do some actual applications of what I mentioned.

Chad's water presented a good chance of MnO2 (Katalox) working to remove both the iron and As due to the high iron in his raw water.
 

Cruisinforgold

New Member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
MnO2 medias oxidize As(III) to As(V), while also oxidizing iron and forming an iron oxide precipitate that is then trapped on the media. This iron oxide formed adsorbs As (and depending on the actual iron mineral formed, should actually adsorb both, though III's sorption is weaker).

I admit that my reading of literature has diminished since I graduated school, but coprecipitation (adding iron to the water to form an iron/As mineral and sorption surface) followed by filtration, iron injection ahead of an MnO2 bed, and anion exchange resins were the most talked about from papers I'd read (at the municipal level). On small levels I've seen products that use straight amorphous iron oxyhydroxide (ferrihydrite) in a filter bed for the removal of As. I've also seen products impregnated with the ferrihydrite (anion beads) for the removal of As, as raw ferrihydrite likes to recrystallize to goethite or hematite if you leave it in water (both of which have a much lower sorption capacity for As and other anions such as phosphate). Dittohead here probably knows more than I do some actual applications of what I mentioned.

Chad's water presented a good chance of MnO2 (Katalox) working to remove both the iron and As due to the high iron in his raw water.

I've been reviewing a study produced by Awwa Research Foundation and the EPA on Adsorbent Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal released in 2005 (100+ pages). http://www.waterrf.org/publicreportlibrary/91084.pdf A highly technical report and difficult read for the "laymen" but useful nonetheless to get thru some of the BS/snake oil in the water treatment world.

I have a couple of takeaways so far (remember this only applies to Arsenic reduction):
  • Zeolite (Katalox-Light Advanced Oxidation media is a special Zeolite media) is not a very good adsorbent media for Arsenic - From report page xix: "The iron-modified zeolite (Z33) generally exhibited the lowest capacities" this media adsorbent was removed from the more detailed studies conducted on other media in this report due to the initial batch testing completed.
  • Remediation of Arsenic is effected by some interferrents - pH levels, phosphates, silica, vanadium and Flouride levels - high PH levels effected all the studied adsorbents. You can see the effects for all types in Table 6.6 and 6.7 of this report. Zeolite (Z-33 Rev B) for high pH levels >8 is Qmax 0.757 vs some of the other adsorbents that were >1.5
  • Higher Silica levels like Chad has - seemed in this study to knock each potential adsorbent down somewhat significantly so you must pay attention to these when formulating a plan for Arsenic remediation.

Again something to think about when trying to sort out the "marketing" claims from the facts. I try to find independent objective evidence to backup the "claim".
 
Last edited:

_John_

Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
5
Points
8
Location
Texas
I've been reviewing a study produced by Awwa Research Foundation and the EPA on Adsorbent Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal released in 2005 (100+ pages). http://www.waterrf.org/publicreportlibrary/91084.pdf A highly technical report and difficult read for the "laymen" but useful nonetheless to get thru some of the BS/snake oil in the water treatment world.

I have a couple of takeaways so far (remember this only applies to Arsenic reduction):
  • Zeolite (Katalox-Light Advanced Oxidation media is a special Zeolite media) is not a very good adsorbent media for Arsenic - From report page xix: "The iron-modified zeolite (Z33) generally exhibited the lowest capacities" this media adsorbent was removed from the more detailed studies conducted on other media in this report due to the initial batch testing completed.
  • Remediation of Arsenic is effected by some interferrents - pH levels, phosphates, silica, vanadium and Flouride levels - high PH levels effected all the studied adsorbents. You can see the effects for all types in Table 6.6 and 6.7 of this report. Zeolite (Z-33 Rev B) for high pH levels >8 is Qmax 0.757 vs some of the other adsorbents that were >1.5
  • Higher Silica levels like Chad has - seemed in this study to knock each potential adsorbent down somewhat significantly so you must pay attention to these when formulating a plan for Arsenic remediation.

Again something to think about when trying to sort out the "marketing" claims from the facts. I try to find independent objective evidence to backup the "claim".

Yes, katalox itself as an MnO2 coated zeolite doesn't remove As worth a dang if you ran pure water with Arsenate or Arsenite at pH 7 through a column of it.

Run 5 ppm iron with a low ppb concentration of As (III or V) with adequate contact time and it becomes a different ballgame as you form a poorly ordered iron oxide that is trapped on the media bed that DOES have a high surface area for As adsorption.

So it's not the media bed itself that makes it effective to remove As, it's the combination of iron in the water plus trapping the iron that makes it effective for As removal.

I agree that it can be somewhat deceptive in Katalox's and other MnO2 based medias marketing as an As removal media.
 
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