0

Is there a portable water filter product (for backpacking), like the following two...

  • MSR AutoFlow Gravity Filter by MSR, which seems to filter relatively large volumes of water (~4 Liters) quickly (~1.75 Liters/Minute) and is portable (299 Grams), but does not seem to filter fluoride and chlorine.

  • Seychelle 28 Ounce Flip Top Water Bottle with Advanced Filter, which seems to filter fluoride and chlorine and is very portable, but does not seem to filter large volumes of water at a time, it requires sucking with one's mouth through a straw, and it is energy-consuming, it is time-consuming.

...but a product that is a blend between the two and/or shares its good features?

  • filters fluoride and chlorine.
  • filters quickly (~1.75 Liters/Minute)
  • filters easily (does not require sucking with one's mouth) - a pump is acceptable, gravity is better.
  • filters relatively large volumes of water (~4 Liters)
  • is portable (< 1 pound)

I'm looking for a clean water solution for when backpacking through city and nature for varying lengths of time. I've read mixed reports about the purpose/effect of fluoridated water for/on human health, and I want to be able to filter out the fluoride.

Improve this question
9
  • 12
    Because chlorine and fluoride found in water in natural areas isn't a health concern.
    – whatsisname
    May 8, 2016 at 5:52
  • 10
    It might help give some context if you explained why you want to remove fluoride and chlorine. Those are both added to municipal water supplies for public health reasons. In the outdoors you're unlikely to find water sources that have chlorine in them. Fluoride does occur naturally, sometimes in unsafe concentrations. However that is fairly rare.
    – nhinkle
    May 8, 2016 at 17:16
  • 9
    There is no way to answer this question, because it presupposes a scientific falsehood: that water fluoridation is harmful.
    – user2169
    May 8, 2016 at 19:42
  • 13
    The city of Calgary recently stopped fluoridating their water due to public demand. In only a couple years the rate of tooth decay in children more than doubled. All the city managed to do was produce yet more data in support of water fluoridation. The stigma around fluoridated water is a myth. As has already been stated, there are area such as parts of Arizona where fluoride occurs naturally in ground water at concentrations double what most cities add to their water.
    – ShemSeger
    May 9, 2016 at 4:15
  • 6
    This isn't a reasonable request. Cl and F are not common in wild water. Even if it were, short term exposure is unlikely to have a health effect. OP needs to explain why the concern.
    – Sherwood Botsford
    Nov 29, 2016 at 3:08

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Reverse osmosis filtration systems should remove +90% of fluoride. To achieve a higher level you would need an activated alumina medium. RO systems that you see for sale may not list fluoride as a filtered element in there documentation, due to it not being generally perceived as a risk to health.

Chlorine should be handled by any carbon filtration system.

Nearly all RO systems will include a carbon media filter.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Flow rates of RO tend to be slow (50 gallon per day for a 'portable' system), and they are large. RO cannot be considered an answer that meets the OP's stated requirements.
    – user5330
    Jun 14, 2017 at 1:19
  • @user5330 Not only that, but RO requires substantial pressure to operate.
    – Loren Pechtel
    Sep 22, 2019 at 5:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.