Advantages: The confident second place for purification from chlorine and heavy metals, good performance softening water, even not intended for this cassette, the easiest and most convenient life indicator, the availability of cleaning.
Disadvantages: The Latin signs of the months on the resource indicator.
jug – 450 Dollars.,
Exchangeable cartridge – 160 Dollars.
COUNTRY OF MANUFACTURER: America.
THE VOLUME OF PURIFIED WATER: 2 l.
funnel volume: 1,7 l.
LIFE REWARE CASSEE: max 350 liters.
LIFE LIFE OF CHANGED CASSET: max 3 months considering the unstable quality of tap water, we recommend to change the cassette once a month , max 90 days for 1 person, 60 days for 2 persons, 30 days for 3-4 persons.
FILTER CASSETE: “Barrier Standard” for post-treatment of tap water without distinctive signs of contamination by certain substances. Not designed for the destruction of bacteria and viruses or for the special cleaning of iron and hardness salts. Composition: coconut activated carbon treated with silver ion exchange resin.
Lifetime of the jug: 5 years.
DIMENSIONS: 250x270x130 mm.
WEIGHT: 835g.
COLOR: anthracite, jade, ultramarine, ruby, amber.
Ergonomics and convenience
Overall impression
The jug is flat, which is better than round or oval, because it takes less space on a table or in the refrigerator. The jug looks nice and modern, and is especially appealing because of the wide range of colors available, which allows it to match any décor scheme. The jug is graded according to the water volume in steps of 250 ml.
Cassette filter cartridge
Cylindrical shape, with a thread for screwing, which prevents untreated water from leaking into the tank. The cartridge is easy to remove and put back in place, the threads are easy to turn. For a special cleaning of iron and hardness salts the manufacturer offers the appropriate cassettes “Iron” and “Hardness”.
Handle
The shape is clever: it has a rounded grip and fits comfortably in the palm of your hand. The inside is made of non-slip plastic.
Cover
Its inner rim protects the contents from dust and prevents the lid from popping out when the jug is tilted: you won’t have to hold it while pouring water. Note the comfortable handle of the cap: thanks to large grip it can be easily removed.
Indication of cartridge replacement
Mechanical calendar indicator is built into the lid and always visible. It allows you to set on the back of the cover any of the 12 months and the number in increments of 5 days 1st, 5th, 10th, and so on and combine the date of installation with the number of people in the family 1-4 .
When all parameters are set, the approximate date for replacing the cassette will appear on the outside of the cover. In our opinion, this is the best option: it will not break, will not fog, will not go anywhere. There are also disadvantages: numbers and letters are pale and small, and the names of months in the Latin alphabet.
Test results
1. Manufacturer’s claims about water purification quality.
The manufacturer warns in the instructions that the tested cartridge is not designed for purification from iron and hardness salts – he recommends to use specially designed filter modules for this purpose. The manufacturer’s website claims purification of 100% of free and active chlorine, but the effectiveness of the purification of heavy metals is not specified.
2. Purification from iron cations.
In the first control point 50 l the content of iron cations in the model solution decreased from 0.48 mg/dm³ to 0.22 mg/dm³ which is significantly lower than the MAC 0.3 mg/dm³ . Much more effective turned out to be “Aquafor” less than 0.005 , a little stronger – “Geyser” 0.18 . At the second reference point 100 l , the value improved relative to the first reference point 0.16 , but worsened relative to the results of the other test participants. In the last control point 150 l the content of iron cations in the model solution decreased from 0,48 to 0,33 mg/dm³ which exceeds the maximum allowable concentration. Similar results were shown by all contestants, except Aquafor 0,17 .
Conclusion: Buying a cartridge “Barrier Standard” for post-treatment of iron is useless: the manufacturer produces only specially designed cassettes for this purpose.
3. Cleaning up from hardness salts.
At the first control point, the content in the model solution of hardness salts decreased from 7.5 to 5.9 ° J, which is below the MPC 7.0 ° J , but all tested samples outperformed this cartridge at this stage. At the second test point, the index improved relative to the results of the first test point 5.5 , but the competitors also performed very well Brita – 3.8, “Geyser” – 3.7, “Aquafor” – 4.3 . At the last control point the value of total hardness was 6.5, which is 0.5 below the MPC.
Conclusion: although the cartridge is not designed to soften hard water, it is still able to cope with the excessive MPC of hardness salts, at least until the middle of its life.
4. Cleaning up copper cations.
At the first control point the content of copper cations in the model solution decreased from 1.02 to 0.044 mg/dm³ which is dozens of times lower than the MAC 1.0 mg/dm³ . Once again, Aquafor was more effective less than 0.005 , a little stronger was Geyser 0.027 , but Brita stayed a little behind: 0.048. On the second test point, the score dropped 0.065 , but Geyser and Brita were already behind 0.07 and 0.08 respectively , while Aquafor still held on to its previous score. In the last check point the content of copper cations in the model solution decreased from 1.02 to 0.15 mg/dm3 which is still significantly lower than MPC and is a very good indicator. The results of Aquafor are better – 0.07, and Brita and Geyser are worse – 0.22 and 0.183 respectively, but it is worth considering that for Brita this is the indicator at full exhaustion of the resource.
Conclusion: excellent level of purification from copper cations and hence other heavy metals.
5. Cleaning from chlorine.
At the first reference point the chlorine content in the model solution decreased from 0.83 to 0.11 mg/dm³ which is about 3-5 times lower than the MAC 0.3-0.5 mg/dm³ . And again – a confident second place behind “Aquafor” 0,03 , and behind Brita 0,16 and “Geyser” 0,22 . At the second test point indicator has improved significantly 0.08 and came close to the leader still 0.03 . Interestingly, Brita has kept its result 0.16 , but Geyser has significantly worsened 0.41 . In the third control point, a well-deserved “silver” 0.24 followed by Aquafor 0.18 . “Bronze” went to Brita 0.36 , and fourth place went to Geyser 0.46 – but even this is within the MPC.
Conclusion: with purification from chlorine this cartridge copes well, gradually reducing the efficiency with the consumption of resources, which is natural.
Can you provide more details about the Barrier Grand NEO water filter test? I’m interested in learning about its performance, effectiveness in removing contaminants, and any user experiences or reviews.