Water filters and treatment discussion..Part 1, source and filters.

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Lawn Sale

New member
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
899
Reaction score
97
Location
Nobleboro, Maine Avatar: Even my shadow hikes!
This is the tangential thread on water filters from the "bad gear" thread. I figured I'd start it with the hopes of quelling many misconceptions before they escalate.

I figured it was about time to start the "water filter" thread anyway as the winter hiking season is over :(


Obtaining potable (safe) water while on the trail, Part 1

The purpose of this segment is to clarify how to obtain clean water while on the trail. I have purposefully omitted many areas of water filtration and disinfection because they do not readily pertain to hiking, and there is enough to chew on and digest already. I could go on for days about different techniques as they pertain to different areas, but since I don’t want to write a dissertation and you don’t want to read one, I’ll keep it as simple as I can.

The problem is how to get safe drinking water from supplies on the trail. The solution is a two-stage process, but let’s go into source supply first, since that’s where it all begins.

I have been hiking for many years, and always hear people say, “this is safe”, or “that is unsafe” when they don’t really have a clue. The proper rule of thumb is that no water is safe to drink. There, that was easy. What about springs you say? How do you know if the spring is fed by surface water? It’s impossible to tell when you’re tramping by. There is even an acronym the EPA uses for regulations, called GWUDISW (or just GWI in Canada), which stands for Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water. How can you tell? You can’t, but those of us with laboratories can, which is all that matters. What about running water, there are still some old myths around that say running water is safe to drink. Sorry, it’s just that, a myth. Running water mixes contaminants so you’re even more likely to grab a sample of something nasty from a stream (although some viruses are more prevalent in ponds). The myth most likely originated from the jungles of Panama where stagnant water would breed malaria and anaerobic organisms due to the lack of oxygen added from the mixing provided by movement.

Some people are going to say they never got sick doing X or Y, and place A or B is known to be safe in the past. The problem here is that people and places change. Some people have a naturally high immune system, so they may not get sick while the person next to them could, despite drinking from the same water source. And no, there is no way to build up a resistance to the organisms, so don’t ingest them on purpose thinking along the same lines as the flu shot. In fact, most people develop more frostbite like systems, where you are less immunized against them if you’ve gotten sick from them in the past. Therefore prudence dictates trying to avoid getting sick the first time.

But, there will always be some people that say you don’t need to purify the water, that the immune system can handle it and that we are too cautious. No problem, see you on the trail. But, to those who don’t like playing Russian Roulette with their immune and digestive systems, this article is for you.

Potable water is relatively easy to make on the trail thanks to the popularity of hiking. Hand filters, smaller disinfection systems, and technological advances have greatly reduced the exposure to the organisms, and microbiological testing has allowed us to more easily categorize and treat the problems when people are infected. It has been said the problems with water are relatively new and that people 30 years ago didn’t used to get sick. This is bunk in my mind as there were less people hiking and fewer trails to hike on, so naturally fewer people got sick, or it was chalked up to bad food or some other source. At any rate, here’s how to obtain safe water.

There are three areas of target organisms to worry about. I won’t go into contamination (pesticides, MTBE, etc) or characteristics (pH, alkalinity, etc) as there is little you can do in the field to change them and they are minor by comparison. I also won’t go into the literally hundreds of individual organisms, except Crypto and Giardia, as they are the hardest to combat. If these are killed, then pretty much everything else is killed as well, which is why they get so much attention.

1. Viruses: Viruses range in size from 0.01 to 0.1 µm (microns, or 1/1,000 of a mm) and are species specific with respect to infection. Escherichia Coliform (E. Coli) and Fecal Coliform (Fecals) are in this group and very prevalent in potential water supplies.
2. Bacteria: Bacteria are single celled organisms ranging in size from 0.1 to 10 µm.
3. Protozoa: Protozoa range in size from 1 to 20 µm. Crypto (Cryptosporidium Muris and Parvum) and Giardia (Giardia Lamblia) are in this group.

Right off the bat you’ll notice the size differences in the organisms. This is why filtering comes into play in hiking. Yes, the filters do add weight to a pack, but they’re necessary in my opinion and one of the heavier ones (Waterworks) only weighs 17.2 ounces complete.

Most filters will remove down to 0.3 microns, which is all of the protozoa and most of the bacteria. But, it won’t remove viruses, which is why you need to disinfect using a method I’ll describe in another section. But which filter to choose, there are so many! The answer is simple, choose the one that suits you.

1. Look for a reliable company. Don’t choose one your uncle Frank developed in his garage, pick one with a reliable track record. This includes ease of maintenance or repair.
2. Pick one that filters to the level you desire.
3. Pick one that’s easy to obtain filters for or clean.
4. Look for one you can be comfortable using. Some have different pumping actions that are easier to use.

For elements, there are 2 basic types:

1. Flexible: The flexible element is used in the Pur Hiker and Guide models and is made of a woven glass. It is not cleanable but is not as susceptible to failure in freezing temperatures.
2. Fixed: The most common is a ceramic filter, but there are pure carbon ones on the market as well. The carbon ones are nice, but tend to plug up easier and are almost impossible to clean. The ceramic ones are easy to clean, but cannot be used in freezing temperatures.

There are also combination filters that combine a filter element with either a polishing medium or a disinfecting medium. The polishing medium is usually a carbon core, which will reduce taste issues and provide a “catch-all” safeguard should the main element start to bleed through, but it does not disinfect. I highly recommend them if you have the option. The water “purifiers” have a disinfecting medium attached to the filtering element that is usually triodide or pentaiodide resin (more effective), but these are more expensive and cannot be cleaned.

I have done some testing on the filters I own, which are the Pur Hiker (13.5 oz), MSR Miniworks (same main filter as the Waterworks), MSR Waterworks (17.2 oz, same main filter as the Miniworks, but with an added second stage), and the Guide (10.8 oz, which needs a new element). The MSR Waterworks will remove more than the Hiker or Miniworks, but it isn’t really necessary to filter to that degree. Some people have mentioned using a sock, T-shirt, or bandana to filter the water, so I tested those as well. The T-shirt and bandana came in tied at 2.5% efficiency and the sock came in at 1.3% efficiency, so I wouldn’t even waste my time with them. By comparison, the Hiker was 89.2% efficient, the Miniworks was 87.3%, and the Waterworks was 97.7%. I performed all these tests filtering 1 liter of the same base lake water (like you’d find on the trail) in my lab.

But, now that most of the pathogens are removed, you still need to address the rest, which can still mess you up. This is where the second stage of the water purification comes into play, and it’s called disinfection, which is the killing of pathogenic (disease causing) organisms.
 
Last edited:
Water Filters and treatment discussion...Part 2, Disinfectants

Obtaining potable (safe) water while on the trail, Part 2

Up to now it’s been fairly simple: filter the water. Now there are some real choices to be made, like which disinfectant or type to use. There are a myriad of choices here, but I’ll only touch one the ones readily available. The chemical disinfectants include chlorine bleach, chlorine dioxide, iodine, and the MIOX system. Mechanical disinfectants include Ultra-violet radiation (Steri-pen) and boiling. I am purposefully omitting using chloramination, hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, ozonation, and bromination as disinfectants because they are not applicable to the hiking world as of yet.

With all disinfectants there are water quality issues to be taken into account. These I have listed in order:

1. Water clarity. The filters really come into play here, as the clearer the water is, the more effective the disinfectant will be. Basically, if you filter, then all of them will work about the same, if not, then another host of problems arise.
2. CT. Referred to as C and T (just the letters), this stands for Concentration x Time, which is the disinfectant dosage multiplied by the amount of time the dosage is in contact with the water. For example, a CT of 100 could be achieved by having a dose of 4 and a time of 25. Or, it could be a dose of 2 and a time of 50. Each disinfectant has a CT table associated with it, based on different temperatures and pH’s, but I’ll save you the time and headache by using a standard water quality we see while hiking.
a. Dosage. How much disinfectant you put into the water. I am assuming disinfecting one liter of water, just to keep things as constant as possible. Obviously the more you put in, the faster the disinfectant will work. But, you’ll also notice it more in the taste category.
b. Contact time. The amount of time the disinfectant is in contact with the water. This is how long you wait before you drink the water you added the disinfectant to.
3. Type of disinfectant. I have listed them below, with their attributes. Some you will need to add more of the chemical, some you’ll need to add less. Each has a different cost, ease of use, taste, and potential side effect associated with it, so you’ll need to weigh these accordingly.

Here I have listed the disinfectant types, along with some tidbits. I am assuming a pH range of 6 to 8 (most lakes and rivers in New England are around 6), and a water temperature of 8°C to 10°C (45°F to 50°F). Colder water and very low or high pH values have a negative effect on the disinfectants and normal pH and higher temperatures allow the disinfectants to work better.

1. Chlorine bleach, aka Sodium Hypochlorite. In stores you can get it as a 5% solution, but if you look in the pool section you can get HTH, or High Test Hypochlorite (powdered calcium hypochlorite), which can be mixed much stronger.
a. Pros: Cheap, easily obtainable, requires only a very small amount (+/- 2 drops per liter), very effective against viruses and bacteria (+/- 6 to 30 minutes).
b. Cons: Produces harmful byproducts in turbid (less then clean) water, degrades quickly over time, easy to taste in the water, easily influenced by materials in the water (tannins, dirt, organics, etc).
c. Giardia and Crypto: Not effective against Crypto at all. Takes 70 to 100 minutes to inactivate Giardia.

2. Chlorine Dioxide, aka Aqua-Mira (USA) or Pristine (Canada).
a. Pros: Lightweight (2.7 ounces for both containers), stable when kept separated, very effective against viruses and bacteria (+/- 15 to 20 minutes), does not produce harmful byproducts, reduces or eliminates taste and odor issues.
b. Cons: Unstable when mixed (must be used immediately), limited life span on base reagents (so I recommend buying a new one for $12 each year).
c. Giardia and Crypto: Takes 100 to 120 minutes to inactivate Crypto. Takes 15 to 23 minutes to inactivate Giardia.

3. Iodine. Stock solutions can be made and bought, but the primary form I’m referring to is the iodine tablet.
a. Pros: Easily obtainable, easy to use, forms few harmful compounds, very effective against viruses and bacteria (+/- 20 to 30 minutes), stable, does not form harmful byproducts.
b. Cons: Taste issues, much slower reaction at lower temperatures, ingestion of concentrated or long term doses may be harmful.
c. Giardia and Crypto: Not effective against Crypto. Takes 50 to 60 minutes to inactivate Giardia.

4. MIOX, aka Mixed Oxidants. Add salt and water to a little pen style unit, hit the button, and presto, instant Miox. Electricity is passed across titanium coated electrodes in a brine solution to create concentrated hypochlorous acid, the main disinfection component of chlorine, and other chlorine compounds.
a. Pros: Very effective against viruses and bacteria (+/- 5 to 20 minutes), lightweight, no taste issues, produces less harmful byproducts than chlorine, claims filtering the water is not necessary.
b. Cons: Costly ($130), dependent on batteries and salt, all of the mixed oxidant chlor-oxygen compounds formed have not been addressed for side effects (the MIOX website even addresses this).
c. Giardia and Crypto: Takes 220 to 240 minutes to inactivate Crypto. Takes 15 to 40 minutes to inactivate Giardia.

5. Ultra-Violet (UV) aka Steri-Pen. A light emitted at 254 nanometers through a quartz sleeve for a specific amount of time. The light disrupts the DNA sequence of the organism so it cannot reproduce and thus dies off.
a. Pros: Forms no harmful byproducts, water quality from a taste and sight perspective remains unchanged, fast rate (in about a minute).
b. Cons: Certain compounds in the water can absorb the light, making it less effective; dependent on batteries and the unit not breaking down, turbid water can prevent organism destruction by hiding in the shade of the particles, costly ($150), limited life span on the bulb, not sure if it can be replaced (but the bulb life span on other UV systems is very high), does not inactivate certain virus strains.
c. Giardia and Crypto: Effective against Giardia and Crypto.

6. Boiling. Bringing the water to a boil below 12,000 feet in elevation.
a. Pros: Complete destruction of the organisms, can be used all year, creates no harmful byproducts.
b. Cons: Requires bringing excess fuel and a stove, time required allowing water to cool.
c. Giardia and Crypto: Very effective as neither one can sustain the high temperatures of the boiling process. Both die off just under 190°F.

People ask what I use all the time since I have been treating all forms of water over the last 14 years. I use a MSR Waterworks filter with a ceramic and carbon element, and disinfect with Aqua-Mira, as I don’t like the chlorine taste. It’s simple, effective, inexpensive, and easy to use. But, this is the combination I chose based on what I wanted, so don’t feel the need to follow in my footsteps unless you want to, other combinations work just fine.

In summation, obtaining reliable potable water requires a two-stage process or a lot of time. If you choose not to filter, then be sure you pick a disinfectant and wait the appropriate time for it to work. If you do filter, then make sure you disinfect so you complete the process. Sure, you can not filter or disinfect and get away with it, most of the time. But, you can also not wear a seat belt on the highway and hope you never get into an accident, it’s your choice. Personally I wear my seat belt and purify my water, because “stuff” happens.

I think it’s irresponsible to recommend people not bother to filter and/or disinfect their water when they really have no idea of the water quality in any area. The fact is most of the pathogenic organisms come from the south bound end of a north bound animal. In other words, how do you know an animal didn’t just go #2 upstream of you. For that matter, how do you know one didn’t go a week ago, or there isn’t one dead in the water source you got your water from. Fish, frogs, waterfowl, and other amphibious creatures routinely “go” in surface waters, so do you really want to drink it without some form of treatment? The simple answer is that you don’t. All these studies on this stream or that lake are also only a snapshot in time, they are no guarantee the water at that moment is clean.
 
Last edited:
Lawn Sale -

Thanks for the reminder/update. I've been using a ceramic filter without further disinfection. I'm just lucky, I guess!

What CT of chlorine is needed to kill viruses in filtered water? When you state 1-2 drops / litre, are you refering to 5.25% bleach? What PPM are you looking for?

Thanks
 
Excellent article. Much more complete than enything I can recall reading either in so-called "handbooks" or magazine articles on the topic.

I've always used the Pur "hiker" filter, but have never bothered with disinfecting under the misconception that after filtering it was unnecessary. Now that I know better I will count myself as lucky and start carrying a disinfecting agent.

Thanks for the great post(s).

Kevin
 
I'm one of those who thinks this water safety thing is overhyped - that cleanliness is a more important prevention. More on this below. From the 70s to the mid 90s we drank most WMNF water without treatment. We did boil water from questionable sources - Kinsman pond, Unknown Pond.

None of us got sick from this. But someone with a weaker immune system may have. Now I bring a filter when hike with a group. I'm willing to take a chance on my own intake, but not on others.

But, more importantly in my opinion, I also bring liquid hand sanitizer. After every bathroom stop and before meals, this stuff gets used.

It's my understanding that, although giardia is one of the more frequent waterborne illnesses, the chance of getting giardia from person-to-person or object-to-person contact is greater than that from water. How many people do you know who wash their hands after handling children? Diapers? Toys at a daycare center?
 
Thank you for a very infomative set of posts. Guess I gotta get some Aqua Mira too.
 
ditto

jrichard said:
I'm one of those who thinks this water safety thing is overhyped - that cleanliness is a more important prevention.

Yesterday whle 'whackin down Hutchins I stopped for a long cool drink of untreated water... :eek:

Onestep
 
Really?

Great article, you've covered just about everything.

On the issue concerning immunity. You say one can't become imune? Why don't Mexicans in Mexico get sick from the same water you and I would almost drop dead from, they drink the stuff like it's water right out of the puddle in their backyards? Are they immune?

Chemical contaminants have not been addressed. I understand carbon can remove some taste issues but will they remove the lead and heavy metals of say a mining source out west, or the chemical run off of factories in Pa?

I've been backpacking the Northeast nearly all my life and never filtered once in 40 years, yet I have never gotten sick. Is that because I am a good canididate to be Mexican or I have been lucky?

Can you also explain why drinking water at the source that eventually makes it to my tap here in NYC would require anymore filtering if the only treatment NYC does is Chlorine? They also ensure 99.99% purity in all the reports I recieve from the DEP. Are they scamming me? Should that water still be filtered before it gets to my tap? Is Chlorine a sub standard method, not able to kill off all the pathogens? If so why would NYC use it and still guarentee that level of pathogenic purity.

I wish someone would talk about proper use of the filter from an infection control standpoint because the chances of cross contamination is so great with improper use, it almost as if no filter was used at all.

Do you work for the DEP, maybe a filter manufacturer or are involved in sales? Do you have any credentials to be so mater of fact about this subject?

Thanks for the great info, it raises alot of questions as well as clear up some myths.
 
Last edited:
Lawnsale--nice discussion--thanks.

There is also a good section on water disinfection in "Medicine for Mountaineering", James A Wilkerson, ed.

Freedom of the Hills also has a short section on the topic.

One dual approach is to filter the big stuff (bacteria, parasites, and parasitic cysts) and then use iodine (.5-1 mg/l) to destroy anything left (viruses etc). This concentration of iodine is tasteless. (Concentrations of 8 mg/l are required only for for killing parasitic cysts.) (Info from Wilkerson.)

A hiking magazine article suggested the use of 2--8 mg/l of iodine for purification. 2 mg/l for cleaner, warmer water with longer contact times, 4 mg/l for medium, and 8 mg/l for dirtier, colder water and shorter contact times.

Iodine was tested on Cambridge (MA) city raw sewage...

My favorite form of iodine delivery is USP tincture of iodine because it is readily available and stable. USP tincture of iodine is 2% diatomic iodine (the active component) plus 2.4% sodium iodide in 50% ethanol. .5 cc of tincture in 1 liter of water gives 1 mg/l. (Also from Wilkerson.) This approach has the disadvantage that it contains the useless sodium iodide.

Doug
 
Last edited:
I did the iodine tablet route for a few years, but after a night at Moose Pond in the 'daks and drinking stagnant insect/micro-organism ladened water, I decided on a filter. I used a First Need for about 4 years then switched to a Pur Scout for about another 4 years and have had my MSR Miniworks now for about 8 years and have had no issues.

I do keep a backup bottle of tincture of iodine in 10 essentials kit (I keep it in a dark brown glass eyedropper style bottle that you can get at a drugstore for $1.)
My filter weighs about a pound and along with my deodorant :D it really makes me feel secure in the puckerbrush.
 
Thanks for the replies all. I'll try to address what I can.

mcorsar, the other chemicals also have a reduced efficiency at lower temperatures. Basically everything in the water slows down, so the reactions take longer.

Davehiker, yes, for the 1 to 2 drops per liter I was referring to the 5.25% bleach. You are looking for about a 2 ppm (parts per million) free chlorine residual on the water. An easy way to test this is to get some free chlorine test strips from any of the manufacturers (Cole Parmer, Hach, VWR, etc), they run about $15 for a 50 pack. I did some actual testing the lab and used 2 drops of chlorine per liter of water filtered through the Hiker to come up with about 2 PPM of residual. The CT is relatively low to kill just the viruses, in the range of 3 to 10.

jrichard, you're right about the cleanliness issue. While I do not have the stats on it, I have heard it's relatively high. We do not go into detail in the water world on it as it's not our area of expertise.

paul ron, everyone is different and nothing is exact, but it's highly unlikely you can become immune. However, you can adapt, which is what I think has happened, to some degree, with the people south of the border. They are more tolerant to the waterborne diseases so it takes more to get them sick, but they are certainly not immune. This is true of almost any regional people, like the Eskimo's tolerance for cold or the people at the equator's tolerance for heat. People can adapt, but what we're taking about is drinking potentially tainted water, which is a hit or miss proposition.

The carbon will remove only traces of lead and other heavy metals from the water. The ones used to treat hazardous water are designed differently, but are made up of similar material.

As to not getting sick after 40 years, maybe a little of both! :) Your immune system may be better or maybe you are drinking more selectively and guessing correctly. I'm not saying every water source out there is contaminated, as they certainly aren't, I'm just saying that since we don't know, it's better in my mind to err on the side of caution.

NYC has an extensive program for testing for Crypto and Giardia, as set forth by the EPA. They are below the threshold for requiring further removal, so they don't need to filter - yet. Many systems across the US are like this, but the regulations are tightening on an annual basis. Some local water utilities will have to install filters or change disinfectants in the near future to maintain compliance. Upon looking into NYC further, they were granted a waiver for filtration in 1993, so they don't have to filter, but they do have to maintain a rigorous watershed protection program to keep the water entering the system as clean as possible. The 99.99% purity report they send you should be correct, but since they have small amounts of crypto and giardia as determined through the monitoring, they can meet the current requirements. If the report is not factual someone is going to jail as it's a federal offense to falsify the report. Check this out for more info.

You are right about the proper use of the filter to avoid cross contamination. Many people overlook this, but the newer ones out there are pretty easy to use properly to avoid this cross contamination.

I have no problem questioning someone's credentials in an area, but I usually don't "toot my own horn". I do not work for the DEP (they asked me to come work for them, but I didn't want to take the pay cut) nor am I affiliated with any of the filter or chemical manufacturers.

My credentials:
I spent 10 years working for an Environmental Engineering company specializing in all forms of water treatment. This includes all potable water, waste water, and hazardous water remediation. I have worked at too many sites to list, managing some, providing technical support for others, and even redesigning ones that needed an upgrade. I left 4 years ago to spend more time with my wife (I'm now divorced) and worked for a large city's water district for 4 months until something closer to home came open. For the last 3.75 years I have been at one of the most advanced water treatment systems in the state, putting out 2 million gallons a day of city water that is on par with the best bottled water money can buy.

I am currently the highest certified operator in the state of Maine and hold the following licenses and certifications:
Maine Class IV Water Treatment (highest)
Maine Class IV Water Distribution (highest)
Maine Grade 5 Biological Wastewater (highest)
Maine Grade 1 Physical-Chemical Wastewater (highest)
New England Laboratory Class II (highest)
New England Collection Systems Class IV (highest)
OSHA 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
OSHA 24 Hour First Responder (second level)

I have many other awards as well, but they're just in-house ones. They don't count here so I left them out.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your insights. I am very impressed with your qualifications adn can see why your article is so in depth.

As for proper use, I am talking about how people handle their filters in the field. They rinse off their hands in the potentially contaminated water, then filter water into a bottle which is handled with the same contaminated hands. Putting your bottles down by a contaminated source will also cause problems. After using the filter all the hoses are handled causing contamination to the user and they are stored in the same bag where contaminated water comes in contact with both the clean hoses and filter body. If a bandana was used as a pre filter in the stream and handled by the user it is a source of contamination again as well as posably reused or stored with clean items, which in turn is now a source of delayed contamination in a new location. Not many people are aware of their infection control habbits.

Again thanks for the info, I found it enlightening adn have already passed it along to some friends.
 
Last edited:
paul ron said:
Can you also explain why drinking water at the source that eventually makes it to my tap here in NYC would require anymore filtering if the only treatment NYC does is Chlorine? They also ensure 99.99% purity in all the reports I recieve from the DEP. Are they scamming me? Should that water still be filtered before it gets to my tap? Is Chlorine a sub standard method, not able to kill off all the pathogens? If so why would NYC use it and still guarentee that level of pathogenic purity.
Purification requries a certain concentration of free chlorine in the water. Organics in the water can absorb chlorine and make it unavailable for purification. A municpal plant can measure this concentration and adjust the amount added to produce the appropriate concentration. Not practical in the field. (Info from Wilkerson.)

Doug
 
I have always filtered/disinfected backcountry water and will continue to do so to avoid any chance of infection, and though I do not disagree with Lawn Sale's opinions, I would like to point out that there has not been wide conclusive evidence that backcountry water is heavily contaminated with coliform bacteria, giardia, cryptosporidia, etc. There is always a chance, but there has not been a good study that assessed the risk for contracting these infections. In fact, a meta-analysis of results did not show a strong correlation between giardiasis and drinking backcountry water. Other sources to check out are

Wilderness Environ Medicine. 2004 Winter;15(40):235-7.
Winderness Environ Medicine. 2004 Winter;15(40):238-44.

However, I am not sure of any new studies since 2005, and if anyone else has found evidence to the contrary, then please let me know.

aviarome
 
Pete_Hickey said:
And we also ate raw eggs.. in eggnog, ceasar salad, eating raw cookie dough, etc. You can't do that any more...

Some of us still do ;)

But then I'm not worried about hikers pooping or critters decomposing in my fridge or near my egg basket.
 
Excellent information Lawn_Sale (and others), Thanks!. I have only filtered water over the last 15 or so years, and now know I have been lucky thus far. A timely post as I'm due for a new filter.

Is there a graph/scale that, after filtering, discusses amount of time required to kill crypto/giardia with Aqua-Mira based on water tempurature? (there's still a lot of cold water out there).
 
Top