Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pristine

Expand Messages
  • Gear Tester
    I got a message from Pristine. The water treatment kits were shipped yesterday. Jerry
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 22 11:16 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I got a message from Pristine. The water treatment kits were shipped
      yesterday.
      Jerry
    • Robert Stanley
      Awesome! Thanks Jerry. The timming couldnt be better. Rob Stanley ... From: Gear Tester To: Sent:
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 23 12:52 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Awesome!

        Thanks Jerry.

        The timming couldnt be better.

        Rob Stanley


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Gear Tester" <geartester@...>
        To: <BackpackGearTest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:16 AM
        Subject: [BackpackGearTest] Pristine


        > I got a message from Pristine. The water treatment kits were shipped
        > yesterday.
        > Jerry
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > backpackgeartest-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Justin E. Vlietstra
        I found a decent document from the epa describing chlorine dioxide at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf I trust EPA reports more than
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I found a decent document from the epa describing chlorine dioxide at
          http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

          I trust EPA reports more than manufacturers claims. The document has a lot
          of info. The first third is not of interest but the rest of it has a lot of
          useful info. In particular it has graphs of the effectiveness of chlorine
          dioxide against viruses, bacteria, giardia, and crypto.

          I am having some difficulty interpreting the information, particularly the
          graphs. The graphs have log on one axis and CT on the other. Log1=90%
          killed, log2=99%, log3=99.9%, etc. CT is supposed to be the product of the
          residual chlorine dioxide concentration (mg/L) and the contact time
          (minutes). What I don't know is the concentration of chlorine dioxide in a
          pristine treated liter of water. I had a number of 50ppm floating in my
          head for some reason but I don't know what that is in units of mg/L.

          Anyway, the document does say that chlorine dioxide kills viruses, bacteria,
          and giardia. It is less effective against crypto, particularly in cool
          acidic water for the contact times hikers will tolerate. It looks like
          chlorine dioxide concentrations high enough to kill crypto within a short
          time would be unhealthy. Chlorine dioxide does produce some potentially
          harmful byproducts so its maximum concentration is limited by the EPA to
          about 1.5mg/L. The document also mentions that chlorine dioxide does
          adversely affect the taste of water in concentration above 0.5mg/L.

          My interpretation of the information in the document is that chlorine
          dioxide is sufficiently effective for the types of water we are likely to
          encounter. It probably won't kill 99.99% of everything, but it should kill
          enough that our immune systems can easily handle whatever is left. So my
          guess is that it is effective but not sufficiently so to pass the EPA's
          tough criteria for water purification.
        • Ryan Jordan
          ... Excellent find, Justin. This is a peer-reviewed document that should be considered as reliable as anything. ... I think someone should contact the
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            > I found a decent document from the epa describing chlorine dioxide at
            > http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/mdbp/pdf/alter/chapt_4.pdf

            Excellent find, Justin. This is a peer-reviewed document that should be
            considered as reliable as anything.

            > What I don't know is the concentration of chlorine dioxide in a
            > pristine treated liter of water.

            I think someone should contact the manufacturer and find this out. It would
            be very useful information.

            > Anyway, the document does say that chlorine dioxide kills viruses,
            bacteria,
            > and giardia. It is less effective against crypto, particularly in cool
            > acidic water for the contact times hikers will tolerate.

            I found this to be interesting. Even at a contact time of 60 minutes for a
            neutral or acidic water source (like a forest stream) you may be looking at
            a 60 ppm (mg/L) or greater dose to generate a 2-log reduction in Crypto...

            I think the real benefit of this chemical lies in its ability to knock out
            bacteria, and to some extent, viruses. Thus, combine it with a sediment
            prefilter (eg, coffee filter) and a high-flow microfilter (eg SWA) to remove
            cysts and you should have a pretty bombproof little backcountry water
            treatment plant.

            > Chlorine dioxide does produce some potentially
            > harmful byproducts so its maximum concentration is limited by the EPA to
            > about 1.5mg/L.

            Keep in mind that this is for ingesting it day after day after day after
            day...I don't mind a higher conc on occasion as long is it isn't
            overpowering.

            Also, you could pretreat with a high chlorine dioxide dose then zip the
            water through an SWA to nab up any remaining nasties. The carbon core of the
            SWA should remove taste associated with the chlorine dioxide.

            > My interpretation of the information in the document is that chlorine
            > dioxide is sufficiently effective for the types of water we are likely to
            > encounter. It probably won't kill 99.99% of everything, but it should
            kill
            > enough that our immune systems can easily handle whatever is left.

            That's my philosophy as well.

            > So my
            > guess is that it is effective but not sufficiently so to pass the EPA's
            > tough criteria for water purification.

            It actually has been endorsed by EPA as a viable water purification
            technology. The main problems in implementing it is that it must be produced
            onsite (can't be shipped in high concentrations, too explosive) and
            production results in some terrible byproducts (perchlorate/perchloric acid
            I think, but I can't recall right now). So, implementing it is expensive and
            is not necessarily a function of lack of EPA blessing.
          • GearTester
            Thanks, Ryan. That answered some questions I had...and reassured me that the system I use, about the same except for the Seychelle filter and Pristine, should
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Ryan. That answered some questions I had...and reassured me that the system I use, about the same except for the Seychelle filter and Pristine, should do the trick. And thanks to Justin for the original article.
              Jerry
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:56 PM
              Subject: Re: [BackpackGearTest] Pristine

              Excellent find, Justin. This is a peer-reviewed document that should be
              considered as reliable as anything.

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.