Thanks for the helpful reply! Here's some followup questions. You said that since the water is tested safe, there's no need for a GAC filter. It was my understanding that GAC doesn't really remove contaminants and won't make water safer, just removes chlorine and various minor taste and odor-causing particles. If that's true, why would the tested safety of the water affect a decision to use GAC on the whole house? Anecdotally, the water from the kitchen sink with a new GAC cartridge in the little Culligan under-sink filter now tastes noticeably better than from other faucets, which is what I expected. The water looks perfectly clear, with no visible sediment even when sitting in a clear glass for over 24 hours. One faucet has, sometimes, produced cloudy water, but that clears on sitting and leaves little bubbles on the sides, so that's pretty obviously caused by a wonky faucet aerator - probably limescale. I plan to replace all the aerators since I'm sure they're all getting some scale buildup. The test returned no iron (below the minimum of 0.015ppm) and a low turbidity of 0.262 NTU, so those support the clear look of the water. I'm not aware of a reason to get crazy about the sediment in the water system, except that it might make the limescale worse by giving the scale particles lots of sediment particles to attach to. Does that even happen? Anyway, it sounds like if I'm aiming for 5 or 10 micron sediment, maybe I should run a pleated filter with a single element instead of the dual gradient ones, since they hold more junk? I'm looking at this 10 micron pleated polyester Hydronix: http://www.allfilters.com/sedimentfilters/10-big-blue/hydronix-spc-45-1010 Between the dual gradient filters and the pleated ones, are there situations that are better for one or the other? You said it's better to replumb the filters in parallel with shutoffs for each. Is that to increase the flow rate, or just to avoid the chance of pressure drop when one clogs? It seems to me that having them in series shouldn't be a problem for flow rate or pressure drop, since they're rated at Thanks again! I hope to figure this out now and not have to think about it later.

Ok, so I got our water report back and no iron but hardness of 332 mg/L. Our local water guy recommended a Softstream Standard model JLM-48 for our house. I attached a pic of the water report and the model specs. They are also including a reverse osmosis for under the sink and running to ice maker/fridge. Does that seem reasonable for family of 5, 3.5 bathrooms, no pool/jacuzzis? I like the 10 yr parts/service call warranty that comes with it, gives me some piece of mind. Again, thank you for your help aliceinwonderland

GardenWeb Community, I need your assistance. I am needing to size a water softening and whole house filtering system for my home and there are many different approaches I have found on the web with different values, peak vs. average flow rates, etc. Based on the feedback I have read thus far from Justalurker and aliceinwonderland_id on this site I am leaning towards a Fleck softening system but not sure which one. Also looking for ideas on a whole home filtering system based on the below test results. We live in Anchorage, Alaska and we just bought a 6000 sqft., 3 bed 3.5 bath house with 3 people living in it (wife, 2.5 yr old daughter, and myself). All appliances are high efficiency Frigidaire Professional series, Triangle Tube Prestige Water heater, etc. A recent water test was performed by a local sales company and the basic results are as follows: TDS: 125 ppm Hardness: 10 gpg pH 7.0 Total Alkalinity 120 ppm Total Iron 0.1 ppm Total Manganese 0.2 ppm Coliform: Neg colonies/100mL Nitrate: 5.09 mg/L Arsenic: ND ug/L Let me know if any additional information is needed in order to provide any recommendations. Any recommendations are welcomed and I genuinely appreciate the assistance in advance. Regards, Derek

There are several options for iron removal. Each has pros and cons - hopefully this will help you make a decision: Softener: You have expressed no desire for a softener, but, just in case you want the info anyway - A softener with specialty resin is capable of removing dissolved iron, up to 7 ppm (mg/L) but asking a softener to remove iron at those upper limits is really pushing it so I do not recommend this method. In addition, a softener will become fouled with particulate iron. A softener will not remove sulfur compounds. Additionally, extra steps need to be taken monthly to ensure the iron is adequately stripped from softener resin - This is the poorest choice for iron treatment. Oxidation/Filtration: An oxidizer such as ozone, air, or chlorine may be used to react with the iron and force it to become particulate iron that can then be removed via filtration. This will also remove most sulfur compounds. A typical setup would involve the oxidizing unit, a holding tank, then a media filter. This type of system works quite well, but takes some expertise in sizing - you would want a water treatment pro that you trust to help you with this option. Oxidizing filtration media: This type of treatment consists of a sealed tank filled with one of several media. Water passes through and is oxidized and filtered by the media. Most will remove sulfur compounds as well as iron. These are relatively easy to operate and what I recommend for the average homeowner. There are several different media that can be used: Manganese greensand: water runs through for treatment. The media must be regenerated with potassium permanganate. Care must be taken with dealing with potassium permanganate as it readily dies organic material, such as your skin, a purple-brown color. Some people are quite comfortable dealing with the chemical; others are not. Synthetic greensand: This is essentially the same as option (a) but consists of a coating of greensand on a silica sand core so does not require as much backwash flow. Service flow rate is 2 - 5 gpm/sq ft. Backwash flow rate is 12 gpm/sq ft. Birm: This media acts as a catalyst to force oxidation of iron. While it does not need to be regenerated, it does need fairly high dissolved oxygen in the water. If your water does not have adequate dissolved oxygen (and it probably doesn't since it is well water), air injection would be necessary prior to the birm. Additionally, birm requires a minimum pH of 6.8. Service flow rate is 3.5 - 5.0 gpm per sqft. Backwash flow rate is 11 - 20 gpm, depending upon water temperatures and desired bed expansion. Pyrolox: an ore that oxidizes then filters the iron out. It does not need regeneration, but needs to be backwashed (to rinse out the iron) at a high rate. pH range is 6.5 - 9.0. This type of filter works very well, but backwash is critical. Service flow rate is 5 gpm/sqft. Backwash is 25-30 gpm/sqft. Backwash daily. Terminox: Similar to Pyrolox, but a proprietary formula . It does not require as much backwash flow rate and is more resistance to a low pH. The particulars are only available from the company that sells it - this means you have to rely entirely on the vendor for proper sizing. Backwash daily. Filox: Also similar to Pyrolox. pH range 5.0 - 9.0. Backwash flow 12-15 gpm/sqft. Service flow 6 gpm/sqft. It must be backwashed daily. Pro-OX: Essentially the same as the previous three. Requires 12-15 gpm/sqft backwash. As with Terminox, specs are lacking information so you'll have no way of knowing if the unit you get is sized appropriately. Katalox-light: Similar in action to the previous four, but is comprised of zeolite, manganese dioxide and hydrated lime. It should be designed for 6 - 12 gpm/sqft service flow atnd 8 - 10 gpm/sqft backwash. For well water, it's a good option as it requires lower backwash. In all cases, media ought to be replace somewhere between 5 - 10 years. If any vendor tells you their media lasts forever, walk away - they aren't trustworthy.