4 ms·
carbon filters remove PFAS but they're relatively ineffective so you need an awful lot of carbon to get a substantial reduction at least compared to the amount
by nullc 4y ago
carbon filters remove PFAS but they're relatively ineffective so you need an awful lot of carbon to get a substantial reduction at least compared to the amount needed to remove other things.
RO is effective, as the chemicals in question have fairly high molecular weight.
But then RO is usually used with a bladder tank which will leach plasticizers so ::shrugs:: (they taste awful at least, so the norm is to follow up the tank with RO).
- fogzen 4y agoRelatively ineffective according to what? The study linked in another comment shows a simple Brita carbon faucet filter being very effective.
- nullc 4y agoCompared to it's effectiveness against things carbon is usually used for. E.g. go look at the setup required for whole house filtration for people with actionable levels of PFAS contamination-- it ends up being like four or five 50lb carbon canisters. If you're talking about 'safe' drinking water and want to reduce it from 2ppb to 1ppb or something-- just a 50% reduction-- then perhaps a small carbon filter is adequate. For just drinking water RO is pretty reasonable, it's just not particularly reasonable to use RO for dishes, shower, etc. Thus the huge carbon canisters for people with acute contamination.
- hgomersall 4y agoYeah, standard practice is to filter through carbon to remove the bladder impurities.