CamelBak’s New UV Purifier - Claims Versus Tests

Water treatment for the outdoors is not regulated. Consumers are unaware of the efficacy of water treatment products as a result and are actively misled by marketing claims from the companies that make them

To achieve its claimed ability to remove pathogens, water going into CamelBak's new UV purifier must first be cleaned by a filter from a rival manufacturer. And that rival product is cheaper. That's according to CamelBak's own lab testing. And its not the only water treatment technology that's incapable of performing as claimed.

This failure to perform as advertised is symptomatic of a larger issue. Water treatment for the outdoors is not regulated. Consumers are unaware of the efficacy of water treatment products as a result and are actively misled by marketing claims from the companies that make them.

"Reducing bacteria by 99.9999 per cent, viruses by 99.99 per cent and protozoan cysts by 99.9 per cent, All Clear purifies water not only to stringent EPA standards, but to CamelBak's uncompromising standards of safety and performance," reads the claim about the All Clear UV purification bottle onthe brand's website.

Yet, an independent lab commissioned by CamelBak totest these claimsfound that, while the filter was effective at killing those three pathogens, it was only capable of doing so in clear water. The lab performed the de rigueur turbid water test by first passing the water twice through an MSR filter. That product removes dirt, protozoa and bacteria on its own, so it's no surprise that testing found that stuff to be gone after also being treated by CamelBak's UV light. The effectiveness of the All Clear in non-filtered turbid water was not tested.

CamelBak itself acknowledges this disparity, specifically instructing users to employ an $US89MSR Miniworks EXfilter to clean dirty water before it goes into the $US99 All Clear purification bottle. The trouble here is that the claims of its efficacy are bold and prominent, while the instruction to use that MSR filter isburied deep in the small print.

And you know what? Not only is that MSR filter a few bucks cheaper, but it also doesn't require batteries, won't break if you drop it and removes all the dirt the CamelBak doesn't. CamelBak instructs users to fill the All Clear only with clear water. "If it's thicker than lemonade," they say to filter it first. I want to know what kind of lemonade they're talking about!

One of the confusing things going on here is thatthere's different kinds of gross stuff in water. Let's start with the dirt itself, which is a major problem for the CamelBak. They need the MSR filter to remove it because, in using UV light to kill bugs, you need the light to hit those bugs. If they're hiding in the shadow of a piece of dirt when that light passes through, the All Clear won't work. The dirt particles are large in comparison to tiny viruses, which are so small they can pass through the holes in most filters, but there's still millions and millions of dirt particles in turbid water.

What the All Clear and other UV purifiers can do that most filters can't is kill viruses. But only once the water is clear enough for the light to reach them. Viruses aren't actually a huge issue for most outdoor enthusiasts. At least not here in North America. It's really only if you're travelling in third world countries that you should worry about Hepatitis A, Norovirus and other viruses.The CDC recommendsyou treat water you suspect of carrying viruses with chlorine dioxide or by boiling it. Chlorine dioxide tablets are cheap, proven and additionally remove protozoa and bacteria, which you'll encounter far more commonly.

If you're travelling to a country where the tap water may contain viruses, then a UV purifier like the All Clear will be an effective way to remove viruses and other pathogens from clear tap water. If you simply want "purified water anywhere," as CamelBak's marketing copy in the top shot (pulled from their website) suggests, then the All Clear and other UV purifiers are not a good option, they will not work in any water that is not clear.

CamelBak isn't the only company guilty of misleading consumers about the efficacy of water treatment products. Sawyer famously advertises "1 million gallons guaranteed," for its inline filters. There's two problems with that: one in the small print and another in real world testing.

Sawyer's small print reads: "We didn't actually run a million gallons through the filter because that's a lot of water." It sure is! And that's probably why rival brand Katadyn asked the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau to look into it.

"NAD found that the million-gallon claims conveyed a message of indestructibility and longevity that was not supported by the evidence on record,"they concludedin January. "NAD recommends the advertiser discontinue such claims."

The Tufts study was conducted on a sample of Sawyer Point One filters installed in a Honduran village by charity Pure Water for the World. Those filters require "backwashing" and other simple maintenance, which the villagers say they performed to spec, but to eliminate that variable, the researchers pulled six used filters and cleaned and backwashed them themselves. They then ran sterile water through them to see if built up crap inside would pollute it. They found thatfaecal coliformwas introduced to the sterile water by the filters. The ones that still allowed water to pass through, anyways.

They also cut the filters open, where significant visual degradation was observed and looked at them under a microscope, where they observed significant membrane fouling.

"…Sawyer PointOne filters were found to have low bacterial and turbidity removal rates after 23 months of household use," the study concludes. "When sterile water was introduced, it exited these filters with higher turbidity and bacteria loading. At least one membrane was irreversibly fouled on interior and exterior membrane surfaces. One filter appeared to have burst fibres, potentially allowing short-circuiting of water."

Here in California, theaverage household uses about 170 gallons (66=44 litres) of water a day indoors. That's likely way, way more than is being used by a household in rural Honduras, but let's just use that as a worst case scenario. Two years of that water use is 124,100 gallons (469,770 litres). And Sawyer's filters are being shown to fail before they're two years old.

Source: Gizmodo

Media

Taxonomy

• Purification
• Filtration
• Technology