A Feasibility Report: Choosing the Best Water Filtration System

To: Dr. Michelle Sidler

From: Matt Mango, Chris Porter, Armon Momenpour

Abstract:
This report will use particular methodology to gather information of a variety of filtration
systems. The water filtration systems we will examine include granular activated carbon (GAC)
systems, reverse osmosis (RO) systems, water distillers, and ultraviolent (UV) light filters.
This report will use a water quality test kit to test for contaminants such as bacteria strains, iron,
lead, nitrates, hardness, and others in the City of Auburns tap water. We will conduct a cost
analysis on the water filtration systems of choice by examining the purchase cost, cost of
operation, and maintenance. We will finally prepare the final report on which system is most
feasible or whether drinking normal tap water is the best option.
This report intends to calculate the most efficient water filtration system by examining how
effective each water filtration system separates out the most prevalent contaminants in Auburn
drinking water, the costs associate with each system in terms of operation and maintenance, and
possible constraints associated with installation and/or occupying living space.
The purpose of this report is to examine the best filtration system from viable water filtration
systems for the typical college student in terms of costs and efficiency. There are many of the
issues regarding the quality of drinking water that are probably over-looked in a college town
like Auburn. Granular activated carbon filters, ultraviolent filters, reverse osmosis filters, and
water distillers are all viable options that will be examined in terms of costs and efficiency.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary:...................................................................................................... 2
Background:................................................................................................................. 3
Methods:...................................................................................................................... 4
Task 1: Conduct Primary Research............................................................................... 4
Task 2: Test Local Drinking Water.................................................................................4
Task 3: Provide a Cost and Feasibility Analysis...............................................................4
Task 4: Choose the Most Efficient Filter and Prepare Final Report and Presentation.............4
Results:........................................................................................................................ 5
Task 1: Conduct Primary Research............................................................................... 5
Task 2: Test Local Drinking Water.................................................................................6
Task 3: Cost and Feasibility Analysis............................................................................. 7
Task 4: Choose the Most Efficient Filter and Prepare Final Report and Presentation.............8
Conclusions and Recommendations:................................................................................ 8
References:................................................................................................................ 10

Executive Summary:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains strict standards for water quality.
However, this does not mean that the treated water is completely absent of contaminants harmful
to ones health. Most contaminants of concern in local drinking water are categorized into
biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants. By examining a multitude of water filtration
systems we will assess the most efficient and cost effective method of water filtration for college
students. Water filtration systems that will be examined include granular activated carbon (GAC)
systems, reverse osmosis (RO) systems, water distillers, and ultraviolent (UV) light filters.
The EPAs strict standards for water quality that filters out the majority of microorganism such as
Cryptosporidium and Giardia lambilia, which originate from human and animal waste.
Therefore, these contaminants are generally well regulated and a minimal cause for concern.
Chemical contaminants are the problematic contaminants found in drinking water. Traces of
elements such as cadmium and arsenic can been found in tap water running from a faucet.
These are many of the issues regarding the quality of drinking water that are probably overlooked in a college town like Auburn. College students commonly either use a Brita pitcher or
drink tap water straight from the faucet because they are looking to find any possible way to save
money. Weighing the costs and health benefits are necessary to determine the most viable option
for filtering drinking water in Auburn. Granular activated carbon filters, ultraviolent filters,
reverse osmosis filters, and water distillers are all viable options that will be examined in terms
of costs and efficiency.
The first water filtration system we examined was reverse osmosis systems. Compared to other
water filtration systems, it is extremely slow. Reverse osmosis, with its ability to efficiently
separate particulate matter in water, may actual remove healthy, naturally occurring minerals in
water. UV filters, despite their relatively fast purification, lack feasibility as well. However, UV
Filters do not eliminate chemicals that are already present in the water. This means that in order
to accomplish sufficient purification, the water usually needs to be pretreated by reverse osmosis
to eliminate the minerals. The third type of water filtration we examined was water distillation.
like reverse osmosis systems, the costs of purchasing a water distiller is at least $200 and it does
a poor job at removing chlorine from water.
The results obtained by testing local water quality indicated a minimal 1 ppm (parts per million)
concentration of iron and no nitrates or nitrites present. The water was found to be moderately
hard (at about 120 ppm). The biggest issue encountered was the high concentration of chlorine at
upward of 4 ppm.The cost of simply purchasing a reverse osmosis system is very high, with the
cheapest systems at a minimum $200 and some of the more complex systems exceeding $1000.
Purchasing a system to pretreat the water in addition to the $400 cost of a UV filtration system
means that this option has extremely high costs associated with it in addition to the lack of
feasibility. The costs of purchasing a water distiller is at least $200 and it does a poor job at
removing chlorine from water. The cost of a GAC system such as a Brita pitcher is usually at the
most $35 and 6 filters (which generally last a year, one every 2 months) costs as few as $30 in a
bundle.

Background:
Tap water that leaves a treatment plant and makes its way to a residential home must meet strict
requirements set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, this does not mean
that the treated water is completely absent of contaminants harmful to ones health. Most
contaminants of concern in local drinking water can be categorized into biological, chemical, and
radiological contaminants. Optimistically, we would like to simply accept that government
regulations will keep our water safe to drink. However, this is not always the case. Some
contaminants, however high or low the concentrations may be, can be a health hazard.
Common biological contaminants include microorganisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia
lambilia, which originate from human and animal waste. These contaminants could cause
gastrointestinal problems such as diarrhea, vomiting, and cramps. The EPA has a maximum
containment level goal of zero for any harmful microorganisms in drinking water. Therefore,
these contaminants are generally well regulated and a minimal cause for concern.
Chemical contaminants are the problematic contaminants found in drinking water. Traces of
elements such as cadmium and arsenic can been found in tap water running from a faucet.
Cadmium can contribute to kidney damage and arsenic has been found to damage the circulatory
system. Compounds such as chlorine, triohalomethanes and chlorite are sometimes present as a
byproduct of disinfecting the water. Chlorine and chlorite can cause irritation to the eyes, mouth,
and stomach. Trihalomethane contamination can cause liver, kidney, and central nervous system
problems.
Even at extremely low concentrations, radioactive substances such as radium and uranium can be
hazardous to ones health. One or both of these radionuclides may be present due to erosion of
soil deposits. Ingesting any radioactive substances present in water increases one's risk of being
diagnosed with cancer.
Some substances in drinking water are not a health hazard in itself, however their presence can
compromise the quality of the water. One problem with drinking water in this regard is the
amount of hardness, which is due to buildup of minerals like calcium and magnesium. While
certain amounts of calcium and magnesium are actually essential to ones health, it can affect the
taste of the water. Some people claim that the harder the water is, the more bitter it will taste.
This is especially true when used in a beverage such as tea or Kool-aid mix.
These are many of the issues regarding the quality of drinking water that are probably overlooked in a college town like Auburn. College students commonly either use a Brita pitcher or
drink tap water straight from the faucet because they are looking to find any possible way to save
money. Weighing the costs and health benefits are necessary to determine the most viable option
for filtering drinking water in Auburn. Granular activated carbon filters, ultraviolent filters,
reverse osmosis filters, and water distillers are all viable options that will be examined in terms
of costs and efficiency.

Methods:
Task 1: Conduct Primary Research
Task Goal: Research the advantages and disadvantages of common water filtration systems
Overall, we would gather information from web sources about the different options of water
filtration used in homes. Granular activated carbon (GAC) filters such as the commonly used
Brita filter will be researched. Other systems of water filtration to look at include reverse
osmosis (RO) systems, water distillers, and ultraviolent (UV) light filters. The mode of operation
and advantages and disadvantages of each type of water filtration system will be examined.
The information we gather from the first task is essential in the efficient progression of the
research from this point forward. We want to make sure to have a general idea of the different
types of water filtration systems when discussing options with representatives of local
companies.

Task 2: Test Local Drinking Water

Task Goal: Identity which contaminant is most prevalent in Auburn drinking water
From a local convenience store such as Walmart, a water quality test kit can be obtained at a
relatively low price to test for contaminants such as bacteria strains, iron, lead, nitrates, hardness
(presence of calcium and magnesium), and others. The client of choice will simply be faucet
water from the Auburn residences of one of our team members. With this information, we can
pinpoint the substance or microorganisms that are most problematic in drinking water.

Task 3: Provide a Cost and Feasibility Analysis

Task Goal: Compare the costs of operation and maintenance of these filtration systems and
convenience associated with use
We will next need to conduct a cost analysis on the water filtration systems of choice. In addition
to taking into account the cost of purchasing each system, we need to examine the cost of
operation and maintenance (this includes electrical costs, battery replacements, filter
replacements, and repairs)
After conducting a cost analysis, we will analyze the feasibility of each system in terms of
convenience for the home setting. We will look at how much installation is required for the water
filtration systems (if any) and how much space each system will take up. One of the superior
types of water filtration systems in terms of purification still might not be a viable option if it
occupies too much space in a home.

Task 4: Choose the Most Efficient Filter and Prepare Final Report and
Presentation
Task Goal: Present findings and conclusions as to which water filtration system is most feasible
or whether drinking normal tap water is the most feasible option
4

We will finally prepare the final report on which system is most feasible or whether drinking
normal tap water is the best option. Our conclusion will be drawn from the following criteria:
how effective each water filtration system is in separating out the most prevalent
contaminant in Auburn drinking water
the costs associate with each system in terms of operation and maintenance
possible constraints (if any) associated with installation and/or occupying living
space
We will present these findings to the ENGL 3040 class.

Results:
Task 1: Conduct Primary Research
Task Goal: Research the advantages and disadvantages of common water filtration systems
The first water filtration system we examined was reverse osmosis systems. Reverse osmosis has
some unique advantages at its ability to desalinate water. Also, it has the ability to filter out
harmful pathogens. However, the cons of using reverse osmosis are numerous. Compared to
other water filtration systems, it is extremely slow. It also wastes 2-3 gallons of water for every
gallon of water that is purified. Reverse osmosis, with its ability to efficiently separate particulate
matter in water, may actual remove healthy, naturally occurring minerals in water. Some
contaminants such as pesticides, herbicides, and chlorine will not even be separated out of the
purified water.
The second water filtration system we looked at was ultraviolent (UV) filtration. UV Filters
make use of UV (ultraviolent) light which lies between visible light and x-rays in the
electromagnetic spectrum. Directly striking the cells with UV light disrupts the DNA of the
microorganisms, preventing reproduction. Since only light (energy) is being added to the water,
other pretreatments are usually required to obtain the purification desired. The advantages to
using UV filters is it kills nearly all microorganisms present and it doesnt involve adding
additional chemicals to purify such as chlorine. A problem that is encountered with UV filters,
however, is that is does not eliminate chemicals that are already present in the water. This means
that in order to accomplish sufficient purification, the water usually needs to be pretreated by
reverse osmosis to eliminate the minerals.
The third type of water filtration we examined was water distillation. In water distillation, water
is heated to steam and then condensed in order to separate out contaminants. The advantages of
using this method is that it reliably removes bacteria and viruses as well as dangerous metals
such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. In developing nations, this proves to be the preferred method
of water treatment. Water distillation will also remove soluble minerals like calcium, magnesium,
and phosphorous that harden the water. There is also a long list of disadvantages to distilling
water for purification purposes. It wont remove synthetic chemicals found in water. Also, it
strips water of natural trace elements. Therefore, long term consumption of distilled water can
result in mineral deficiencies in the body. The purified water can also become very acidic due to

the high hydrogen composition. The process requires 5 gallons of tap water to generate 1 gallon
of purified water.
The last filter we looked at were granular activated carbon (GAC) filters. These filters work by
using carbon particles in the filter to adsorb substances in the water that is fed, as shown in
Figure 1. This holds use of filtration holds numerous advantages. It can reduce the amount of
chlorine and particulate matter in the drinking water. It will also improve the taste of the water.
The maintenance of these filters are simple and no electricity is required for the filtration to
occur. A full pitcher will normally be filtered in about two minutes, which means it is time
efficient as well. However, the disadvantages include the need to frequently replace filters and
the inability to remove harmful bacteria. In addition, if the bed of carbon granules are too loose,
some particulate matter might not be filtered out.
[Text Wrapping Break]

Figure 1: How a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filter works; Obtained from
http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/accaty.html

Task 2: Test Local Drinking Water

Task Goal: Identity which contaminant is most prevalent in Auburn drinking water
Walmart and other local convenience stores in Auburn were out of stock of water quality testing
kits. Eventually, we were able to obtain a Culligan branded drinking water quality test kit from
ACE Hardware in Auburn at a price of $10. The kit used color coded tests to determine iron,
chlorine, nitrate, and nitrite concentrations as well as total hardness (combined concentration of
calcium and magnesium ions). As noted in the methodology, the client of the research was one of
our team members. Water was sampled from the kitchen faucet in the apartment of one of the
team members.
The results obtained indicated a minimal 1 ppm (parts per million) concentration of iron and no
nitrates or nitrites present. The water was found to be moderately hard (at about 120 ppm). The

biggest issue encountered was the high concentration of chlorine at upward of 4 ppm (using the
color coding, the chlorine content was somewhere between 4 and 10 ppm).
To provide a sense of how high that chlorine content is, the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) recommends pool water to have a chlorine content between 1 and 3 ppm.
Therefore, having water running out of a faucet with a higher chlorine content than many
swimming pools indicates chlorine is the contaminant of the most concern with Auburn drinking
water. Chlorine is a necessary additive for water treatment to kill off bacteria and other harmful
microorganisms that can be present. Therefore, at least the high chlorine content confirms that
the presence of harmful microorganisms in the drinking water is negligible.
The main health concern that excess chlorine in drinking water can pose is when it mixes with
organic matter in the water. This cause the formation of trihalomethanes, including chloroform.
Over time, trihalomethanes can increase free radical production in the body, which is a risk
factor for cancer.

Figure 2: Results of Water Quality Testing

Task 3: Cost and Feasibility Analysis

Task Goal: Compare the costs of operation and maintenance of these filtration systems as well
as the efficiency of filtration
Analyzing the cost and feasibility of reverse osmosis yielded some troubling results. Some
contaminants can pass through the membrane and still end up in the drinking water. This
includes volatile organic chemicals, synthetic chemicals, and chlorine. Since chlorine is the most
notable contaminant observed from testing the water directly, the inability of reverse osmosis to
remove it from the drinking water (or at least filter out some of it) confirms it is not very
feasible. In addition to the lack of feasibility, the cost of simply purchasing a reverse osmosis
system is very high, with the cheapest systems at a minimum $200 and some of the more
complex systems exceeding $1000.
7

UV filters, despite their relatively fast purification, lack feasibility as well. The filters have to be
replaced every 30 days and the system is meant mainly for killing harmful microorganisms. If
sufficient purification were to be accomplished, the water would have to be pretreated with a
different filtration system to remove any harmful chemicals, such as the excess chlorine found in
our drinking water. Purchasing a system to pretreat the water in addition to the $400 cost of a UV
filtration system means that this option has extremely high costs associated with it in addition to
the lack of feasibility.
Water distillers encounter their own unique problems in terms of feasibility. Water distillation is
very slow; it takes about 5 to 6 hours to distill 1 gallon of water. Since water distillation requires
sufficient heat to boil the water into steam, a startup time is also required. Generally, 5 gallons of
tap water are needed to generate 1 gallon of purified water. Also, like reverse osmosis systems,
the costs of purchasing a water distiller is at least $200 and it does a poor job at removing
chlorine from water. The lack of feasibility and high costs are apparent with water distillers.
Granular activated carbon (GAC) filters, such as the ones used by Brita, do not encounter nearly
as many problems as the other three types of water filtration systems. The filter can be used in a
specialized pitcher in which tap water is fed through the top and then filtered through the bottom.
No electricity is required and a full pitcher can be filtered in about 2-3 minutes. The carbon
adsorption of the filters also does a great job at removing harmful chemicals and can effective
filter out chlorine. The cost of a Brita pitcher is usually at the most $35 and 6 filters (which
generally last a year, one every 2 months) costs as few as $30 in a bundle. With all of these
factors considered, GAC filters look like the better choice in terms of cost and efficiency in
comparison to the other three types of filtration systems examined.

Task 4: Choose the Most Efficient Filter and Prepare Final Report and
Presentation
Task Goal: Present findings and conclusions as to which water filtration system is most feasible
or whether drinking normal tap water is the most feasible option
Our group came to the conclusion that granular activated carbon (GAC) filters are the most
viable option for effectively filtering drinking water in Auburn. We will present our findings to
the ENGL 3040 class on Saturday, June 20.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

In regard to the criteria used for evaluating our choice of GAC filters as the best option to
filtering local drinking water, there were a few main things we considered. First, GAC filters are
the only filter of the four examined that actually succeeds in separating out chlorine in the
drinking water. Since chlorine was the most apparent contaminant in the water after the quality
testing, this was an important factor in our choice. Another criterion that GAC filters exceeded in
was cost effectiveness. A Brita brand pitcher with GAC filters to last a year all together cost as
few as $65. The costs of purchase of reverse osmosis and water distillers are both at least $200,
and UV filtration systems cost $400 to purchase. The maintenance costs on top of the costs of
8

actual buying the system makes the other three options not viable in this regard. The last criterion
examined was convenience. GAC filtration is by far the most convenient because it requires no
electricity (unlike the three options) and can filter a whole pitcher in about 2-3 minutes. Water
distillation requires startup time and many long hours of boiling and condensing. UV filters have
to be replaced twice as frequently as GAC filters. Also, installation is required for both reverse
osmosis and UV filters.

References:
1. "Water Filter Buying Guide." Best Water Filter Buying Guide Consumer
Reports. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2015.
<http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/water-filters/buying-guide.htm>.
2. "The Best Water Filters Of 2015." Reactual. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2015.
<http://www.reactual.com/home-and-garden/kitchen-products-2/best-countertopwater-filter.html>.
3. http://www.historyofwaterfilters.com/reverse-osmosis-pc.html
4. http://www.historyofwaterfilters.com/distillation-pc.html

10