|
28 Sep 07 - 06:55 PM (#2159630) Subject: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: wysiwyg What's better-- a Brita water filtration pitcher or a Pür? ~S~ |
|
28 Sep 07 - 07:11 PM (#2159636) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: artbrooks According to Consumer Reports: Carafes are all about compromises. All were so-so for removing off-tastes. Though the Pur was the best at removing contaminants, it clogged well before its claimed life of 40 gallons, so you'll be replacing filters more frequently. The Brita and the Shaklee didn't clog, but the Brita wasn't very good at removing lead. The Shaklee fell down at removing chloroform. On sink-mounted units: The faucet-mounted Pur does what a filter should do and doesn't take up any counter space or have any unsightly visible tubing. But it clogged quicker than its claimed life span. The countertop-type Kenmore (Sears) 34551 filters water faster, doesn't clog as quickly, and costs less to operate than the Pur. The undersink Kenmore (Sears) 38454, though not as good at removing lead, combines excellent overall performance with an unobtrusive appearance. Its operating costs are low but it should be professionally installed, which adds about $150 to $300. Hope that helps. We have a Brita carafe, and have had no problems with it. Lead isn't a problem here. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 10:05 PM (#2159690) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: wysiwyg Thanks. We have a couple of Brita pitchers. They have done well on our funky farm water, and on funkier campground water, but we also have come across a cheap (used) Pür so of course I grabbed it. But I am not sure I really want to be buying two types of filters. Maybe I'll pass it along and watch for another Brita-- it would be nice to have one for the upstairs loo. Or maybe I'll go see what the Pür filter cost is first. ~Susan |
|
28 Sep 07 - 10:07 PM (#2159691) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: Sorcha Nor here (lead) and Britta does make a faucet mount. I've not tried it, but I like the taste of the Britta carafe. Our problem is mostly black specks in the water...and I think they are coming from the filter. I DO change it when it says to. Never tried a Pur anything. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 10:30 PM (#2159697) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: Donuel Since lead is the primary contaminate here we went with a reverse osmosis system which does only a slightly better job at minimizing lead than the single carbon filters. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM (#2159728) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: open mike I must chime in here, as a distributor of Multi Pure water filters. They make a "point of use" unit which connects under the counter and has its own faucet. The filter uses a solid carbon block to remove impurities, contaminants and even chlorine. I drink water right out of the stream and have used the Multi Pure for many years to safely remove giardia, e-coli, and other nasty stuff from my drinking water. There is also a counter-top model which attaches to the faucet, but I find these quite cumbersome. It is also dangerous to accidentally flow hot water thru these types as the toxins may dissolve back into hot water. It is so convenient to draw a glass (or coffee pot, or jug...)of water right from the "tap". (without having to pour water into pitchers, or lift huge bottles, or wait for it to trickle thru devices) I can provide more information if anyone is interested... Some of my customers get these filters to improve the taste of the water in a town that uses a high amount of chlorine. They also have tubes that go to the ice maker of your freezer for pure ice. I welcome P.M. or e-mail to veraloe at gotsky.com (replace at with @) |
|
29 Sep 07 - 02:46 AM (#2159761) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: JohnInKansas I looked recently at the possibility of getting an "undersink" filter that I could install in our camper. We "need" a filter there, since even when the water is safe enough we encounter a lot of "variable taste." We've used a Brita pitcher for several years, but the filling (a pot of coffee takes an entire pitcher), and finding places to put it in our small camper, stimulated an interest in something more convenient. I found both Brita and Pur, along with a couple of others, at local "home improvement" outlets, and the initial cost was quite reasonable for most of the smaller units. The only "stopper" was that for all of the units I looked at the cost of a single replacement filter was more than the initial cost of the filter. Checking the recommended replacement frequencies (against number of pots of coffee) indicated that we'd essentially (costwise) be buying a new system at least once per year in order to have "convenience" for the roughly 4 to 6 weeks that we're in the trailer in most years. I decided to stick to the Brita pitcher ($3/year?) instead of an "installed" system ($40 - $60+/year?). The units I was looking at were, of course, smaller than I'd want for a house or other regular/longer-term use, and larger units may come in a little cheaper (per pot). My choice, in pitcher style filters, is based largely on the more ready availability of Brita in local markets. It's easy enough to find Pur pitchers, but the Brita are more frequently seen where I shop. John |
|
29 Sep 07 - 09:59 AM (#2159883) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: wysiwyg Brita has a larger carafe model we use in our camper because of just the capacity you describe, John. I don't like it at home, where I find it too big and heavy for the water-bottle use that's the main home use. In the camper I pour off into a plain counter-top tank we already had. There is an even bigger Brita tank style, I think it's 2 gallons, with a flip-spout like on some water cooler. My MIL has one and it works great; a little harder to clean if the sink is small but plenty of capacity. That smaller home unit BTW (2 qt.) has a filling reservoir exactly the same capacity as my water bottle, so it's pour one and refill the other, plus the extra prior-filtered amount left behind if I haven't filled last time and want to fill a bottle. I keep a spare 1-qt. pitcher by the sink in case the sink itself is too full of dirty dishes to fit the carafe under the faucet. Nice thing about the Brita, too, is all the filters are the same size: only the carafes and tanks vary. ~Susan |
|
29 Sep 07 - 01:23 PM (#2159979) Subject: RE: BS: Brita vs. Pür From: Stilly River Sage My ex has an ingenious chain of devices under his sink. The first filter is a Sears type that the cold water runs through, and up to a separate tap on the sink for filtered cold water. He also runs water from that filter into the under sink hot water tank that keeps a quart or so hot at just below boiling for tea and cooking and such. I have resisted buying refrigerator/freezer units with taps and ice makers for years, because they are usually what break first. But when I bought this house and needed a fridge, the Sears on our side of town was closing to relocate, I found a deal too good to resist on a floor model (about 35% off) and it has the water and ice maker. It does a good job, and I buy the filter that removes more of the problem elements than just the flavor or smell issues. Costs about $80 a year for the filters. Rather than go to the trouble to buy and install one of those under sink water heaters, which typically needs to be completely replaced every four or five years, I spent $50 for a wonderful steel kettle (Cuisinart--I looked a long time to find one that didn't have exposed weld points and wouldn't be heating the water against or in various forms of plastic) that sits on a base and has a simple switch. It turns itself off when it boils, and only takes a couple of minutes to boil about six cups. SRS |