Advantages: true consumer-friendliness: sustained quality through to the end of the life span, very beautiful and handy jug, excellent water softening.
Weaknesses: Not the most economical choice: Because of the high cost of the replacement cartridge and the short life-span of the cartridge.
Jug – 1890 Dollars.,
Replacement Cartridge – 245 Dollars.
COUNTRY OF MANUFACTURER: Germany.
PURIFIED WATER VOLUME: 2,2 l.
FILLING VOLUME: 1 L.
RATIONAL RATIONAL CARCESSAGE LIFE: 150 liters max.
LIFE LIFE OF THE REMOVABLE cASSETTE: up to 3 months taking into account the unstable quality of tap water we recommend replacing the cassette once a month .
FILTERING CASSET: Maxtra Technology with MicroporeFilter and ProtectFilter which filter the water in four stages: fine-mesh filter to trap mechanical impurities, ion-exchange resin, granulated activated carbon, fine-mesh filter again.
LIFE LIFE OF THE Jug: 5 years.
DIMENSIONS: 260×248×135 mm.
WEIGHT: 835g.
COLOR: white, lacquered black pictured .
Ergonomics and convenience
Overall impression
Shape and construction were thought over by the designers and engineers to the smallest detail: ergonomics in every detail, from the large rubber feet to the hatch for filling the lid.
Cassette filter cartridge
Unusually flat cartridge shape with a knob handle to pull it out of its seat. There are also finger recesses to pull out the cartridge alternatively. The cartridge is put on a special holder and fixed without screwing.
The funnel is designed so that non-filtered water cannot mix with already filtered water.
Handle
With rubberized anti-slip grip and anatomical shape.
The lid
Fits snugly into the funnel and will not pop out if you tilt it too much thanks to an ergonomic shape with a thumb rest for easy grip on the lid. The spout is covered by a valve that opens when the jug is being filled. There is a hatch in the center of the lid for filling the water. The opening is closed with a valve which opens even with a gentle stream of water.
Cassette exchange indicator
The lid has a built-in electronic memo-indicator. It features a display which shows the cartridge life level 25, 50, 75, 100% and a “Start” button which activates the counter anew each time by holding it down for 5 seconds. By the way, the little detail of the unintentional touch guard is a mark of general well-thought-outness. Well, it counts for time: every month the indicator will remind you that it’s time to change the cartridge. The splashes of water that fall when pouring water on the screen of the indicator do not spoil it and do not affect its operation at least for a few weeks of using the jug, nothing bad happened to the indicator .
Test results
1. Manufacturer’s stated quality of pretreatment of water.
The manufacturer’s website reports that the cartridge being tested “has a 20% improved ability to reduce water hardness compared to the BRITA Classic cassette,” “reduces other substances such as chlorine that affect the taste and smell of tap water, reduces some heavy metals such as copper and lead, as well as pesticides”.
2. Additional purification from iron cations.
In the first control point 50 l , the content of iron cations in the model solution decreased from 0.48 to 0.25 mg/dm³ which is slightly below the MPC 0.3 mg/dm³ and 2 times lower than that of the model solution. The most effective here was Aquafor under 0.005 , slightly stronger were Geyser 0.18 and Barrier 0.22 . At the second reference point 100 liters the index improved relative to the results of the first reference point 0,15 , but also allowed to take only the third position. In the last control point 150 l the content of iron cations in the model solution decreased from 0.48 to 0.35 mg/dm³ which exceeds the MAC and is the worst result in the test. All contestants, except Aquafor 0,17 , performed not much better.
Conclusion: Buying this cartridge for iron removal is practically useless, although the manufacturer did not claim such properties.
3. Cleaning up of hardness salts.
At the first control point, the content in the model solution of hardness salts decreased from 7.5 to 4.6 ° C, which is below the MPC 7.0 ° C . At the second control point, the indicator has significantly improved relative to the results of the first control point 3.8 – this is only 0.1 worse than the “Geyser” special hardness cassette. At the last control point, the total hardness index was 5.9, which is 1.1 lower than the maximum allowable concentration, a very good result.
Conclusion: excellent water softening even at fully exhausted resource.
4. Additional purification from copper cations.
At the first reference point, content of copper cations in the model solution decreased from 1.02 to 0.048 mg/dm³ which is dozens of times lower than MPC 1.0 mg/dm³ . And again, Aquafor turned out to be the winner under 0,005 , Geyser is much stronger 0,027 , and just ahead is Barrier 0,044 . At the second test point, the index further decreased 0.08 and did not allow it to come close to any of the competitors. At the last control point, the content of copper cations in the model solution decreased from 1.02 to 0.22 mg/dm³ . This fourth result is still significantly more than 4 times lower than the MPC and is an excellent indicator, especially with the full depletion of the resource.
Conclusion: Good quality of purification from copper, and hence other heavy metals throughout the life of the cartridge.
5. Chlorine purification.
At the first control point the content of chlorine in the model solution decreased from 0.83 to 0.16 mg/dm³ which is approximately 2-3 times lower than the MAC 0.3-0.5 mg/dm³ . This result – the third place after “Aquafor” 0,03 and “Barrier” 0,11 .
The indicator remained absolutely the same in the second reference point which testifies to the stability of purification against the background of the brilliant “Barrier” leap 0,08 and the drop of “Geyser” whose life span is just over the 25% mark to almost the upper limit of MPC 0,41 .
At the third test point and this is the limit of life for this cartridge the residual chlorine was 0.36, which is slightly above the lower limit of the MPC, but 2.5 times higher than it was in the model solution.
Conclusion: steadily good purification of chlorine compounds right up to the end of the filter cassette life.
This article seems interesting and informative. I’m curious to know if the Brita Elemaris XL water filter has been tested for its effectiveness in removing impurities and improving the taste of tap water. Can you provide any insights on its performance?