Which softener valve to choose

Users who are viewing this thread

verbalkint99

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Waterford, Michigan
People on this site have been incredibly helpful thus far and I really appreciate it. I have been looking into a water softener for a few months now and keep dragging my feet on making a decision. With our first child due to arrive in the next few weeks my window is shrinking.

I have done the research, read reviews, had several water tests done, and have determined that I want to buy online due to cost savings and my relative handiness. I want a gravel underbed, quality domestic resin, a top basket, safety valve in the salt tank, a 33" salt tank, a noryl bypass, and a Fleck valve.

I have about 14 grains of hardness, 0.5ppm iron, and a slight sulfur smell in both the hot and cold (more prevalent in the hot, but it is present in the cold). The house is 2.5 baths, and we are planning on a family of 4. This has me looking at a 64,000 grain unit.

All that said, I have no idea what valve to choose and each bit of new info makes that decision harder rather than easier. If I could get a Clack valve online and install myself life would be a lot easier, but I know that is not possible. I have read the spec sheets and other documents for each valve on the Pentair site, and have watched a number of videos posted by water treatment companies.

At first I was looking at the 5600sxt, but after reading that the 64,000 grain unit was at the valve's upper limits, the special tools needed for DIY repairs, and its basic programming options I started looking elsewhere.

The 7000sxt was suggested due to flow rates, though a website I was refereed to mentioned this:
"If you have a home with 4 bathrooms or less and still want a high flow system, please consider our Fleck 5000 SXT Pro Flo system.The Fleck 7000 SXT systems are designed for larger homes with 5 bathrooms or more."

The 2510 was described to me as similar to the Clack ws100 valve both in operation and ease to rebuild. However I am worried that the the programming is too complex for the first time DIYer.

Lastly is the 5000sxt suggested by one of the websites, though it is new to me and I have admittedly not read up much on it. I plan to change that this morning before I head to work.

I know the decision is ultimately mine, but I was hoping for some opinions by people more knowledgeable than myself that might make my decision a bit easier.

Thank you!
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,795
Reaction score
4,413
Points
113
Location
IL
I have about 14 grains of hardness, 0.5ppm iron, and a slight sulfur smell in both the hot and cold (more prevalent in the hot, but it is present in the cold). The house is 2.5 baths, and we are planning on a family of 4. This has me looking at a 64,000 grain unit.
It would be better to have a backwashing iron+sulfur filter on the incoming water. A softener is not going to treat the sulfur smell, and it would require increased maintenance if it is to do the iron removal. On the other hand, that filter would cost more than the softener. At least leave space for such a filter if you decide to not do that initially.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Agreed, softener do not tolerate H2S. A KDF BB filter is not a good choice for this application, a proper backwashing system would serve you better.
As to the valve, the 5000, 7000, 2510, all are fine and all are fairly easy to maintain, but... typical life expectancy can be 10-20 years for the internals of the valve so ease of rebuilding is not that critical. All of these valves can be rebuilt in under 20 minutes.
 

verbalkint99

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Waterford, Michigan
That makes sense. So are you saying a backwashing iron/H2s system rather than a softener to start. Or would a iron system and a 54000 grain softener combo be better?
 

verbalkint99

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Waterford, Michigan
Ok, so the 0.5ppm justifies the need for a second piece of equipment? I want to do this right the first time, but in a cost conscious way. I cant thank you guys enough. I know at some point it's got to get annoying.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,795
Reaction score
4,413
Points
113
Location
IL
I have 0.39 ppm iron. The iron was a moderate problem. More problematic was the sulfur smell, which is much harder to quantify. The recent test shows these numbers for the raw water, which partially relate to the sulfur smell:
Sulfur, total, by ICP 46.3 mg/L EPA 200.7
Sulfate 134 mg/L EPA 300.0A


My iron+sulfur filter uses 1.5 cuft of Centaur Carbon, and it has been very effective. It uses a 5600SXT controller, and filtering puts more demands on a controller than a 2cuft softener would due to the backwash rates. I expect maybe 8 or 10 years life out of my media. If I replace the media, I might put in Katalox Light, which requires more backwashing flow. I would then replace the 5 GPM BLFC with a 7 GPM, and it still would not have optimum backwash rate (but I expect it would be adequate). I don't have a compelling reason to switch media later, since my existing media has been doing a fine job.

The water heater had about 9 years on it before the filtering was installed. Flushing the water heater yielded impressive rocks and dirt.

The EPA Secondary MCL for iron is 0.30 mg/L, (same as ppm). http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm explains that secondary standards are not health related, but look at aesthetic qualities.

I would add a cartridge filter after the backwashing filter. It will have little to do. After that, I would add a boiler drain to let you fill a water jug with filtered unsoftened water for drinking. That can also be a useful place to attach a pressure gauge. This can serve to judge if the filter cartridge is getting full. I am about 16 months into my current cartridges, but I put 20x4.5 cartridges that I ordered before deciding to get the backwashing filter.
 
Last edited:

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Almost all iron reduction medias are some sort of manganese dioxide ore over another media. Except for Filoz, Pyrolox etc which are simply manganese dioxide ore... no substrate. Birm, MTM, greensand, greensand+ and many other medias use very little manganese dioxide ore over sand or other similar substrates. Katalox Light is 10% manganese dioxide over clinoptilolite. Clinoptilolite is marketed under many brand names and is used for fine sediment reduction, typically down to the 3 micron level and is easily backwashed and can last for many years. Combining these 2 medias and using a much higher percentage of manganese dioxide is what has made this media so unique. It is fairly easy to backwash unlike pyrolox and filox, and it removes iron, mangense, and H2S better than most medias. The literature you are reading does not tell the whole story. All manganese dioxide ore based iron reduction medias are still reliant on the ORP of the water. Often times air injection, or another oxidant can greatly enhance the medias effectiveness. Most systems that use an iron reduction media can benefit from using Katalox Light. It's main drawback is that it is more expensive than most other medias.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
That is a different treatment method. That requires a oxidant regnerant. The idea behind manganese dioxide ore based systems is that the system can change ferrous iron into ferric iron and it is physically removed from the water in the filtration bed as a solid.

Carbon based iron reduction assumes the chlorine added to the water changes the ferrous iron to ferric, the carbon then acts as both a physical filter to remove the ferric "rust" from the water and as a chemical adsorber to removethe chlorine. This is a fine treatment method but the carbon will require regular monitoring and replacement.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,795
Reaction score
4,413
Points
113
Location
IL
My Centaur Carbon catalytic media in my backwashing iron+sulfur filter acts as a catalyst, just as the manganese media does. I have no injection of air or chlorine during service. There is enough dissolved oxygen in my water, just as there needs to be with other catalytic media used without injection. I bought the system duplicating a system a friend of mine found effective. My lab iron test of the treated water shows zero iron after the filter. My nose says the sulfur smell is gone.

My 3-day regen cycle does uses some bleach. A gallon of bleach plus 14 gallons of water in the solution tank lasts me 12 regens totaling 36 days. I am not sure what jobs the bleach does, but I expect it would kill any potential growth on the media and may oxidize something away. But there is no chlorine or air injection in service. I wonder if a Katalox Light system might benefit from a similar solution with its regeneration.

I think they predict an 8-year media life vs 3 years for activated carbon media that is used in chlorination systems. I got my system Nov 2012.

Calgon does not publish much application data for home application on Centaur Carbon, that I find publicly, very unlike what Watchwater does with Katalox Light.
 

verbalkint99

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Waterford, Michigan
Ok, so the carbon requires bleach for back-washing? I wonder if this will pose a problem for a septic field. My understanding is that the katalox can use a chemical wash, but it is not needed? This may be easier on the septic field.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,795
Reaction score
4,413
Points
113
Location
IL
Ok, so the carbon requires bleach for back-washing? I wonder if this will pose a problem for a septic field. My understanding is that the katalox can use a chemical wash, but it is not needed? This may be easier on the septic field.
They offer an alternative that uses air instead of bleach.

The bleach is 1/12 gallon every 3 days, so I think the septic tank does not have a problem with that. See https://www.clorox.com/dr-laundry/septic-tanks-and-bleach/
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
The carbon/chlorine backwash systems use the chlorine as a regenerant similar to the way a greensand filter uses pot perm... supposedly similar principals. The calgon carbon used in this manner tends to last 1-3 years before the problems come back, not too shabby. Manganese dioxide medias tend to last much longer. Some manganese dioxide medias can be utilized in a similar fashion. We have been testing Catalox Light for years under these conditions and have found a few quirks and tricks to make it work very well. Just like the Calgon system you have, a few little tweaks to the solution and it works fairly well on very low levels of iron and h2s. The Manganese dioxide medias tend to handle much higher levels of iron and manganese than do the carbon based designs.

Hope this helps
 
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