Well water – new system setup to remove iron

Users who are viewing this thread

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
I've been reading here as a guest, now I am going to ask for an advise on how to make best fit new system configuration.

Simplifying my previous post.
My well water has 0.8ppm of iron and basically nothing else.

I am using a chlorination system to oxidize the iron.
To remove such small amount of precipitated out iron, would catalytic carbon be as sufficient filtration approach, or the manganese oxide media has to be used?
 
Last edited:

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
@ditttohead,

Thank you for the response.
What proportions would you recommend, would this be optimal:
1 cub ft - Catalytic carbon
0.5 cub ft - Clinoptilolite
20 lb - gravel

Is this correct assumption: the Catalytic carbon will not be able to be cleaned by back-washing, it will keep absorbing precipitated out iron until gets saturated, stops working and will have to be replaced in 1-3 years?
 

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
@Reach4,
Thanks, good advise. I will check a low level chlorine at various stages.

I am worrying to mix Catalytic carbon and clinoptilolite (I read that this requires 14-18 gpm/sq ft of backwash flow) as required backwash flow rate is 1.5 times different between them.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Correct, and good research. In general many medias simply turn into an amalgam. Softening resin and carbon are a prime example of medias that on paper should separate but in practice they comingle, Clinop and carbon separate quite nicely. The carbon will stop most of the iron on the top of itself as a precipitated rust like material. Anything that gets through in the ferric state is usually easily stopped by the clinoptilolite. Ferric iron is fairly easy to backwash out so even though the clinop may not be getting its usual preferred backwashing, it still tends to do a very good job. I would go for the next size up tank, typical blend is 1.75 carbon, .25 clinop, but everybody has their own secret blend. Be wary of many companies that do this, clinop is a lot cheaper and some companies will do a 50/50 mix, this is done to lower their cost, not to enhance performance.
 

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
So basically there is no need to use manganese oxide type of media to remove (I was thinking of Pyrolox, MangOx, Filox) the iron and the catalytic carbon + clinoptilolite would be sufficient and last longer that 5 years?
Or it might make sense to sue manganese oxide media that would last much longer, will not saturate, and even some clinoptilolite can be added to help removing ferric iron stage? But now one will remove the remaining chlorine and VOC.
Would it be a good option to mix in some carbon to make it a universal filtration?
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Once the iron is oxidized the manganese dioxide ore can help if some of the iron remains in the ferrous state through a reduction/oxidation process, but in general you will get adequate results with just carbon. This is actually a very old method of iron reduction, heavy chlorination, backwashing carbon, done. It has proven fairly effective most of the time but as you mention, the GAC tends to have a finite life expectancy. The medias you mentioned are still used but many companies have switched to hybrid medias rather simple manganese dioxide ore. Katalox Light is Manganese dioxide ore coated/impregnated into clinoptilolite. This gives it very similar performance properties of filox.pyrolox, but with the easier backwashing of Clinop. Since you are chlorinating, the best method would be a tank of Katalox Light followed by a carbon tank, if that is in the budget then go for it.
 

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
@ditttohead, thanks for advising. I will take a closer look in to a single tank system filled with Katalox Light. Need to do some more readings as I found there are mixed results/feedback from the field using Katalox Light. Or will use a Pyrolox. Will try not use a carbon at all, will accurately set the chlorine injection dosage to have a very low, almost not noticeably, chlorine remaining to keep the pipes, water heater, toilet tanks free of bacteria. Once in awhile I have an iron eating bacteria problem.
 
Last edited:

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
I am planing to use Pyrolox (0.8 cb ft.) and Clinopit (0.8 cb ft.) in one 10x54 tank.
I know that Pyrollox requires 25 gpm/sq ft for the backwash, but since there is only 18" of Pyrolox high in the tank, smaller over all mass that would be easier to lift, would the 9-10 gpm of backwash sufficient?
Would be helpful to know the feedback from the field, long time actual installations, on what minimum backwash rate is still acceptable for Pyrolox.
 

Bannerman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,795
Reaction score
768
Points
113
Location
Ontario, Canada
The backwash rate specified is based on the cross section of the tank diameter, not the height. You will notice the back wash rate you specified is 25 gallons per minute per square foot of tank area. The cross section of a 10" tank is 0.54 sqft so 25 X 0.54 = 13.5+ gpm.
 

electrotuko

Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Austin, TX
@Bannerman, thanks for comments. I understand that, and understand that is an ideal situation recommended by manufacturer. In the real life some installations are not providing sufficient amount of backwash sacrificing backwash performance. But still might have a good manganese ore condition at the lower backwash rates, even it requires 13.5 gpm for 10x54 tank.
I just want to know what is the real lowest backwash rate that would keep media in the good shape, based on the actual real life data,
 
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