Katalox, pH Spike, Hardness Spike - Please Advise

[John K]

Hello, I would really appreciate some advice.

I have two houses that need treatment, my home and a single-family rental. The water chemistry is different, but both have some iron and manganese; both have soft, alkaline water; and both have taste and odor issues (I'm assuming hydrogen sulfide.) Both well pumps produce around 12 GPM.

I had three local companies come over, and was given three very different recommendations. After some research (in hindsight obviously not enough!), I bought two systems consisting of a 2.5 CF Vortech tank, Fleck 2510SXT control valve with air injection, and Katalox Light media.

I installed one of these in my house. After set up, the water still smelled bad, had a weird metallic/salty taste, and made hair and laundry feel “brittle”. I had a lab test the water, first after the specified initial backwashing, and then again a week later after hours of additional flushing and backwashing recommended by the vendor. The water continued to smell, taste and behave badly.

I then replaced the Katalox media with 1 CF of Birm and 1 CF of Centaur Carbon (to help with the smell and taste), and the water now tastes and smells fine. I again had the water tested. Here are the results, all values except pH in mg/L:

My House........................................Katalox..............Katalox..................Birm and
..............................Raw Water..........First Test..........Second Test........Centaur Carbon

Calcium..........................5......................98!...................49!............................8

Hardness.......................15....................243!..................123!..........................21

Iron..............................0.02.................0.33?.................0.12?.......................<0.1

Manganese..................0.008.............<0.001...............<0.001...................<0.001

pH................................8.75!.................11.66!!...............11.24!!......................9.5

My thoughts and questions:

1. Any overall observations or recommendations? Any reason why the configuration with Birm and Centaur Carbon won’t continue to perform well and last for a reasonable time?

2. Specs for Birm state that Birm should not be used if hydrogen sulfide is present, and the untreated water did intermittently smell pretty bad. Would having the Centaur Carbon in the tank take care of the adverse effect that hydrogen sulfide has on Birm?

3. My raw water has negligible metals, but the red stuff would quickly show up in toilets and laundry. From what I’ve read, this could be due to the freakishly high pH, which tends to make stuff precipitate (as opposed to acidic water which tends to be aggressive/corrosive).

4. I’ve also read that high pH is associated with a bitter or soda-like taste.

5. It’s weird that the Katalox resulted in higher iron. Possibly the filtered water picked up iron previously deposited on the pipes?

6. The Katalox increased calcium, hardness and pH exponentially. Why isn’t this disclosed by the manufacturer and vendors, or is it just my water? There is some mention of a “possible” “temporary” increase to pH, but I’ve seen nothing about the effect on calcium/hardness (which is apparently due to a “binder” they use). I suppose the pH increase is okay if you start with acidic water - AND if you disclose that that Katalox shouldn’t be used if you have high pH - but who wants to turn their water hard?

6. Though the water was still unacceptable, all the Katalox metrics improved after a week of heavy use and backwashing. Does anyone know whether Katalox “stabilizes” at some point and stops driving up the calcium/hardness and pH?

Which brings me to the rental house. The water needs to be treated, but I want to do it right the first time. And while my house has a well with plenty of water, the well for this rental does not. It can be pumped dry fairly quickly. There are three bathrooms, and up to five occupants. Here are the raw water numbers:

Rental

Calcium 16

Hardness 53

Iron 1.43

Manganese 0.042

pH 7.55

I have the 2.5 CF Vortech tank and Fleck valve, and I’m thinking either a) 1 CF Katalox plus 1 CF Centaur Carbon, again for taste and odor, or b) 1 CF Birm plus 1 CF Centaur Carbon.

My thoughts and questions:

7. Is there a better configuration that I haven’t considered?

8. Is 1 CF of Birm or Katalox appropriate for this level of metals?

9. I bought the 2.5 CF tank so there would be a high flow rate for the large family, but I’m now wondering if that size will use too much water when backwashing given the limited reserve of water in the well?

10. As to backwashing – are there any overall tips/guidelines/recommendations to minimize water usage?

11. Katalox apparently has some advantages over Birm, and I have some on hand, so if Katalox does in fact stabilize at some point and stops driving up the calcium/hardness and pH, it would probably be my first choice. With this water, there’s room to increase the pH somewhat, but the hardness is just below the “moderately hard” range, and I don’t want to cause a significant permanent increase to the hardness.

12. If Katalox would continue to increase calcium/hardness, I would lean toward Birm, which in my house resulted in negligible increase to calcium/hardness. But what about the spec not to use Birm if hydrogen sulfide if present (question #2 above)? And same question as to whether Centaur Carbon in the tank would mean that Birm is okay with hydrogen sulfide?

Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to be thorough, and thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Reach4]

Interesting observations and data collection/presentation. I don't have the info you are looking for. Those have different backwashing rate requirements, and people have different opinions on what the best backwashing rates are. Make sure you are using a top basket.

You might find this KL backwashing table, I made by pulling data from Watchwater graphs, to be of interest.

Well and plumbing system sanitizing is usually a good idea.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[John K]

(Deleted by op)

 

[John K]

Thanks for the reply and chart Reach4. I'm not sure exactly how to use the chart, but I was told by the vendor that my GPM was adequate. Your chart does show something interesting that I've read here, about the impact of backwash temperature. And I agree about sanitizing, but in this case, for both houses the symptoms were back in a week or so. And the tank has a plastic strainer/top basket that slides on the riser tube - is that what you mean?

 

[Reach4]

And the tank has a plastic strainer/top basket that slides on the riser tube - is that what you mean?

It is.

See http://www.watchwater.de/pdf/katalox-light/KL_Brochure_NEW_ver_1.1.pdf

I think the graph is more meaningful than the table in that document.

50% bed expansion means that if the tank is 2/3 full, the backwashing media will just reach the top. I think 35% or 30% would be what I would want at a minimum.

 

[John K]

So here's something - I think the top basket was upside down when the tank had Katalox. Could that have affected performance of the filter?

And my pump GPM is between 12-15, but I've used 12 GPM to be conservative. Am I reading the chart right, that that is borderline enough for backwashing?

 

[Reach4]

So here's something - I think the top basket was upside down when the tank had Katalox. Could that have skewed the treated pH and hardness numbers??

I don't see how.

And my pump GPM is between 12-15, but I've used 12 GPM to be conservative. Am I reading the chart right, that that is borderline enough for backwashing?

The pump does not have to maintain shutoff pressure during backwashing. If it keeps 30 PSI during the backwashing, I think it is not limiting things.

You might want to see what DLFC button was used in the build.
It might be 12 gpm. It might be 10.

 

[Bannerman]

Perform a search on this site with regard the Katalox & pH issue, particularly posts by Ditttohead. I seem to recall the pH issue is temporary but I don't recall if anyone experienced a hardness increase.

Mixing two vastly different weight media within the same tank is not generally recommended. The carbon is much lighter and therefore requires less backwash flow than the BIRM. A top basket (aka: top screen, upper distributor) is not typically recommended for preventing media discharge as over time, the force on the screen will often cause it to fail.

I think the top basket was upside down when the tank had Katalo

What makes you think this?
https://www.softenerparts.com/Distributor_Top_1_05_Twist_On_MD1203_or_18280_p/md1203.htm

 

[ditttohead]

Katalox Light systems will typically have a partial screen (diffuser) or an umbrella design rather than a regular top screen.

https://view.publitas.com/impact-water-products/2018-catalog-final/page/140-141

 

[John K]

Reach4, according to the manual linked from the vendor's website and hopefully is accurate for my unit, the DLFC button is 7 GPM.

Bannerman, I actually read this thread https://terrylove.com/forums/index.php?threads/katalox-light-raises-ph-above-legal-limit.65643/ before buying the Katalox, but that poster's high pH seemed like it was connected to inadequate GPM's from his pump, and possibly an upstream air injector. He did show an increase in hardness, but a different order of magnitude than mine. And after a while his pH came down, but his iron went back up. No reports after fixing his flow rate though.

Other than that, I've seen it mentioned in passing that a temporary pH increase could be expected, but haven't seen anything about hardness increase.

Why is it not recommended to put different weight media in a tank?

Bannerman and dittohead, the screen diffuser looks something like the brown funnel-shaped component at the top of the tank shown here
http://www.ilovemywater.com/uploads/manuals/manual147.pdf, though mine is a different brand. It is the size of a smallish kitchen funnel.

There were no instructions on installing the diffuser, so I installed it with the little canopy angling up, like a sprung umbrella, similar to the linked diagram. I installed it this way because it had little ribs that I could grab with a pliers to slide it off the tube. This was with Katalox in the tank.

When replacing the media with Birm and Centaur Carbon, I had seen a video where it installed with the canopy angling down, like a normal umbrella, so I did it that way.

Thanks to all for your time and interest - I know your time is valuable and appreciate your willingness to help out.

 

[Reach4]

according to the manual linked from the vendor's website and hopefully is accurate for my unit, the DLFC button is 7 GPM.

That would be much too little backwash for a 13 inch tank.

 

[Bannerman]

Katalox Light systems will typically have a partial screen (diffuser) or an umbrella design rather than a regular top screen

Thanks for the clarification. Since the umbrella diffuser is only shown in your catalogue associated with the turbulator, I had considered that diffuser is only used when a turbulator is utilized.

Not intending to derail this topic but since the umbrella style is used with KL, what is the benefit to using that diffuser with that media?

 

[John K]

That would be much too little backwash for a 13 inch tank.

So the gpm required for backwash should be the same at the DLFC?

I think I would want to measure the flow, as the manual may be generic or refer to a different unit.

 

[Reach4]

So the gpm required for backwash should be the same at the DLFC?

DLFC determines the backwash rate.

Measuring the drain flow during a backwash would be good. Timing how long it takes to fill a 5 gallon bucket, to the second, would do it.

The markings on the DLFC button would show which button is in there, but measuring would check more.

 

[John K]

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[John K]

The markings on the DLFC button would show which button is in there,

The button says 10 gpm.

The Watchwater brochure calls for 10.5 gpm, but qualifies that this is for the ideal situation. It advises to use this flow rate and warns against using a higher flow rate.

So per your chart, assuming water temp of 50 F/10 C, that gives bed expansion of ~ 30%.

Does this seem like backwash was effective?

 

[Reach4]

It advises to use this flow rate and warns against using a higher flow rate.

To the extent that it may advise against going higher than some rate, I would think that would be the Service flow rate.

 

[John K]

You're right.

 

[John K]

Does this seem like backwash was effective?

Answering the question, "was the backwash flow rate adequate during the Katalox phase", I'm satisfied that 10 gpm was more than enough.

For a 13" tank, the Watch-Water chart calls for 10.5 gpm. My Vortech tank instructs reducing the specified gpm by "at least 30%", which in this case would mean minimum BW rate of 7.5 gpm.

Using temperature-adjusted values, 10 gfm actual equates to 14 gfm Vortech-adjusted, which produces 40% bed expansion.

Thanks again to Reach4 for helping with this.

 

[Reach4]

For a 13" tank, the Watch-Water chart calls for 10.5 gpm. My Vortech tank instructs reducing the specified gpm by "at least 30%", which in this case would mean minimum BW rate of 7.5 gpm.

That is BS IMO. The deal is that the Vortech at best could cause the flow to be at an equal rate across the diameter. Laws of physics, and all that. If any compensation from the GPM/sqft number would be made, it would be for gravel.