Favorite Carbon Filter Setups?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

philrose

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
15
Location
NoDa, Charlotte
Right now I carbon filter my brewing water by taking the housing and filter out of the household pitcher and dripping through that into a kettle.

This takes between 45 minutes and 2 hours depending on the brewday.

Any ideas for speeding this process up? can I use a beer filter such as this one or this one (which I swear I saw at the local brewpub's water line) to remove chlorine?

Otherwise my very soft Seattle tap water suits very well for brewing.

Thanks for the help gents.
 
I used to use an under the sink cartridge type filter, the second one you listed. I had it set so I could hook it up to my kitchen faucet and after I was done would break it down to let it dry out.
 
I guess what I'm asking is related to speed.
-Can you get a decent flow rate with in line carbon filtration? Is the slow drip the key to its usefulness (I doubt that)
 
You've got to run it slow enough for the carbon to grab the chlorine or chloramine but since it's got so much more surface area than the pitcher types, you can run it at like a quart a minute.
 
Bobby usually I would agree with you, this time I disagree. I did a lot of research(internet) on this subject. Activated carbon works by absorption through micro-fissure in the carbon particle. Any substance filtered through activated carbon has to travel through these micro-fissures to achieve filtration. Due to the size of the fissure, speed can not be attained and keep the purity. By trying to achieve high flow rates most of the solution will flow around the activated carbon and not through it. I have used activated carbon for water purification in a commercial high end tropical fish business and homebrew production. I have also used it to remove contaminates from distilled beverages. In every application the solution needs to trickle through the activated carbon for maximum contaminate removal. Trying to pressure feed a carbon bed only forces the solution around the carbon with little going through the micro-fissures. we are dealing with dissolved contaminates which in essence cannot be filtered, that is why carbon works because it absorbs it. Unfortunately absorption takes time.
OP, have you thought about installing a float valve similar to what is used in a toilet? This would allow you to trickle through the filter the night before brewing without overflowing your HLT.
 
OP, have you thought about installing a float valve similar to what is used in a toilet? This would allow you to trickle through the filter the night before brewing without overflowing your HLT.

yeah, float switch had come to mind but I was hoping for a simpler solution.

If we're talking night before, I think I'd rather just fill my cooler MLT with 10 gallons of water and drip at a slightly slower rate than the drips on the brita filter. At that point, 8 hrs of filtration time is not a big deal. Of course, this would require some forethought but would eliminate the speed concern.
 
so assuming that a trickle will get the best chlorine absorption,

Will a slightly faster flow yield acceptable chlorine levels? I'm really interested by all the replies so far, thanks Bobby, Thirty and Ray :mug:
 
What I posted was for optimum contaminate removal. I'm often cursed by time so I usually filter at Bobbys rate then add campden tablets. If you are only dealing with chlorine and not chlorimine then the combination of filter and campden works pretty well.
 
I used to run a carbon filter setup like the second one you linked to. Yesterday though I ran my water through my RO/DI units pre-filters. So my water went through the sediment cartridge and then through 2 carbon cartridges. I kept the flow down low enough not to send water through the waste line. It was running faster then 1 quart/min. Probably about 1 gallon/min.

Bobbym and beerthirty,
If the water is being filtered through one of those whole house filters, doesn't the water have to pass through the carbon? My RO/DI unit is a 100 GPD unit with the standard 4-1 ratio. So over the course of 24 hrs it flows 400 gallons, right? I know the RO membrane continues to capture the nastiness, but it seems to me that I wouldn't have to run such a slow flow rate. I think the same thing along the lines of a whole house filter. They're not loose carbon pieces. Also, when it comes to carbon there are choices. I see some carbon filters bragging on coconut shell and others not. Which is better?
 
I've always wondered about the coconut shell thing too. I use the coconut shell filters just because. I'm using the 10 micron coconut shell carbon filter.
 
If your water tastes good with out filtering, and all you want to remove is chlorine/chloramine, why not go cheap and easy and use a campden tablet to remove them? One tablet treats 20 gallons of water in minutes, and adds nothing to the flavor profile of the water or the beer. Fill your kettle the night before, grind up and dissolve one tablet in a pint of water dump it in the kettle if less than 20 gallons, more tablets if you're treating more than 20 gallons, and in minutes, seconds really once mixed, your good to go.
 
If your water tastes good with out filtering, and all you want to remove is chlorine/chloramine, why not go cheap and easy and use a campden tablet to remove them? One tablet treats 20 gallons of water in minutes, and adds nothing to the flavor profile of the water or the beer. Fill your kettle the night before, grind up and dissolve one tablet in a pint of water dump it in the kettle if less than 20 gallons, more tablets if you're treating more than 20 gallons, and in minutes, seconds really once mixed, your good to go.

I like this option, had vaguely heard of it before but never tried it. Is the lhbs a good source for campden?
 
Bobby usually I would agree with you, this time I disagree. I did a lot of research(internet) on this subject. Activated carbon works by absorption through micro-fissure in the carbon particle. Any substance filtered through activated carbon has to travel through these micro-fissures to achieve filtration. Due to the size of the fissure, speed can not be attained and keep the purity. By trying to achieve high flow rates most of the solution will flow around the activated carbon and not through it. I have used activated carbon for water purification in a commercial high end tropical fish business and homebrew production. I have also used it to remove contaminates from distilled beverages. In every application the solution needs to trickle through the activated carbon for maximum contaminate removal. Trying to pressure feed a carbon bed only forces the solution around the carbon with little going through the micro-fissures. we are dealing with dissolved contaminates which in essence cannot be filtered, that is why carbon works because it absorbs it. Unfortunately absorption takes time.


Not necessarily. I agree that slower is better, but the solid block activated carbon filters can be pressure fed at relatively high flow rates. With these filters all of the water must pass through the carbon. None can bypass or "go around" the carbon. The maximum flow rates for these depend on the size of the fliter cartridge. The larger whole house type filters can easily handle residential tap flow rates. IIRC, the one I use is rated at six gallons per minute, although in actual use I seldom exceed one gallon per minute or so. I pretty much use it exclusively for brewing and drinking water. I've been using a coconut type solid block cartridge for about five years with very good results.
 
Coconut shell is the cheaper form of activated carbon. While it is not as efficient as other types of carbon, with large filters it is more economical and works just as well.

Actually no. Bituminous (ie coal) and wood based carbon are the cheaper forms. The coconut shell based activated carbon is about 20% more costly and is supposed to be the superior product. Admittedly, this is taken only from stuff I've read and not being a chemist, I have no way of verifying the information. It may just be marketing B.S. and nothing more than that.
 
Back
Top