filter vs steriPen

Posted by: Jake28

filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 01:04 AM

im trying to cut space in my pack and am considering my PUR (old version of Katadyn) waterfilter. I have the hiker pro essentially but i am interested in a SteriPen. does anyone have experience w/them? positives and negatives would be appreciated. thanks

jake
Posted by: ChrisFol

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 01:15 AM

Originally Posted By Jake28
im trying to cut space in my pack and am considering my PUR (old version of Katadyn) waterfilter. I have the hiker pro essentially but i am interested in a SteriPen. does anyone have experience w/them? positives and negatives would be appreciated. thanks

jake


I have zero experience with a SteriPen or any other UV purifier, however there are an abundance of threads on this topic throughout the forum and on others.

From my readings the pros would be lighter weight and better packability. Negatives would be that they are somewhat unreliable, have a short battery life and they require clear water.

I personally just use Chlorine treatment for solo trips-- light, takes up no space and doesn't cost $100. If I need water for two or people then I use a gravity filter.
Posted by: DTape

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 08:07 AM

Chris gave a good summary. The only pro I can add to his list is speed. A uV purifier is extremely fast from start to finish. Chemicals take time (giardia and crypto cysts require time measured in hours), and filters have more setup, maintenance, fiddle time etc... The other con to uV (also for chemical) is it doesn't remove other non-microbial contaminants as some filters do.
Posted by: Rick_D

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 11:51 AM

No Steripen experience but I've used a UV Aquastar quite a bit. It's relatively easy and fast, and deals with viruses unlike filters that aren't rated as "purifiers," which is most of them.

The shortcoming of UV is very cold water, which puts a strain on the batteries and reduces the discharge tube's output. Chemical treatment is likewise affected.

Cheers,
Posted by: Jimshaw

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 01:29 PM

I think my PUR is as fast as a steripen, AND there is ONE HUGE advantage to a filter - it filters. Yah - all the junk in the water is still there with anything but a filter, so if your water isn't pure enough to drink out of the stream, you might want to filter it anyway. If you don't have enough room in your pack for a filter, you should consider getting a larger pack anyway.
Jim
Posted by: DTape

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 01:45 PM

Hey Jim, How is the water up your way? In the adirondacks the water is pristine. Without stating, because of the newbies, you probably know what that means for me. wink
Posted by: Jimshaw

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 05:51 PM

Tape
[I'm whispering this so the beginners won't hear me. In the Sierras we used to just carry a straw. I bet I could drink fom our wild and scenic river that flows through town with just a straw too. Where I hiked with Bigfoot we didn't need a filter either but don't tell him since he put chemicals in his water. I normally just dip my pan in the water since I rarely drink water without coffee in it anyway.] keep it quiet.
Jim wink
Posted by: BorealHiker

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By DTape
Chris gave a good summary. The only pro I can add to his list is speed. A uV purifier is extremely fast from start to finish. Chemicals take time (giardia and crypto cysts require time measured in hours), and filters have more setup, maintenance, fiddle time etc... The other con to uV (also for chemical) is it doesn't remove other non-microbial contaminants as some filters do.

I got a Steri-pen for Christmas and have tested it off and on all winter with my stash of Nalgenes that I keep in the truck for use at work. (unfrozen, which was easy in this record mild winter)

I'm coming to the conclusion I may need to carry both Steri-pen and filter on some trips. But most of the water I find will be clear enough for the Steri-pen.
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 07:00 PM

I won't repeat my post here on the Steripen; look in the "Water Filters" thread just below, started by AKLoganTx.

You might want to search the "Backcountry Health and Safety" section (here and in the Archives) for lots more on filters and other water treatment.
Posted by: Shrike

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 08:30 PM

I own a steripen journey and an msr miniworks ex so I have experience with uv and filters. I love the steripen because it is so fast and easy. I went on a trip with three other people and we all used the steripen for a week. It worked great and we didnt need to change the batteries. We had clear water so that was not an issue.
If you are worried about floaties you can buy the prefilter steripen sells. It has a little screen that works surprisingly well.
I carry chemical tablets as a backup for the steripen. I highly doubt I will have a problem with the steripen but because it is your water supply its kinda important. I think most of the bad reviews are from people who do not take the time to read the manual. They have no idea what they are doing, get frustrated and go say its a terrible product. I think since it can survive an entire PCT trip that would put the steripen in the "very durable" category.
Posted by: phat

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 09:23 PM

I dunno folks. as soon as I see "take chemical treatment as a backup" all I can say is.. "take Chlorine Dioxide and leave the dead weight at home."
Posted by: OregonMouse

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 10:00 PM

Sorry, shrike, I DID read the Steripen Adventurer manual very carefully both before leaving home and at the creekside when the thing wouldn't work! My son, an electrical engineer with a background in electronic testing equipment, also read the directions carefully and had the same problems. He could turn the thing on and off, but the switch was too stiff for me! But he also had no success with the problem of the thing cutting off in mid-cycle. No, the red light we got was definitely not the low-battery signal. And yes, we were very careful to keep the UV light submerged while stirring.

After I posted my original report on my problems with the Steripen on this and other forums (summer of 2008), I got a number of responses reporting the same problems. So it isn't just me, and it isn't just people who don't read and follow the directions! I've since seen a number of posts from folks who found the Steripen did fine at home (as did mine) but malfunctioned in cold weather or at high altitudes.

Please don't cavalierly dismiss all authors of adverse reviews as "people who do not take the time to read the manual." Maybe you just got lucky and happen to have one that did not act up in the conditions in which you used it. Maybe I had a defective model, but it worked fine at home with tap water before and after the trip. I could even turn the switch on and off at home, although I couldn't manage it out in the field--evidently at 80*F it's a lot less stiff than at 50*. Unfortunately, I generally backpack under colder conditions and where tap water is not available.

After a number of trials with different gravity filters (the one I like, the ULA Amigo Pro, is no longer made), I'm going to emulate Phat and stick with chlorine dioxide. Lots lighter, lots less complicated--and batteries not required!
Posted by: Shrike

Re: filter vs steriPen - 02/27/10 11:44 PM

OM: I understand what you mean.

I have read reviews like yours and realize some do not work. Thats why I got mine at REI, just in case it was a bad one. I have had no problems yet.

I met a guy on Mt. Hood who had carried a steripen from Mexico on the PCT. He loved it and said it had been very reliable

As far as using chemical treatment. I would rather not ingest all the chemicals that it would take to purify enough water. I know there is chlorine and stuff like that in city water but I filter that out too. As mentioned earlier the chemical treatment takes a long time as well so I will carry the extra 5 ounces to have water in 90 seconds.

Phat: No matter what I brought for collecting water I would have a backup. Whether it is extra stove fuel for boiling or another filter I would not feel comfortable with only one means of getting water.

I guess the moral of the story is this is what works for me and it will probably be different than what you prefer. People have their own opinions about what works and what doesnt, we just need to find what works for us.
Posted by: Jake28

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 04:26 PM

i think will buy a steriPen from REI like suggested above. is there a model that anyone would recommend? i saw one of them that comes with the prefilter which would be nice. thanks again for all the advice, hope the one i get works well.
jake
Posted by: Jeff

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 04:45 PM

I used a Steripen for the last 9 days of my JMT trip in 2008.
I bought it in Bishop since my filter had gotten too slow.
I enjoyed the ease of use and speed. The water tasted a little
bit different. I don't know if I was tasting the unfiltered stuff or
my mind was convinced the UV light somehow changed the taste.

Posted by: Trailrunner

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 04:55 PM

I don't mind a few floaties in the water when I use my Steripen. When it's realy bad my bandana becomes the prefilter.
Posted by: Boomer

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 06:19 PM

it is impossible for the UV light to change the taste of water as taste is derived from proteins in the water. FUNDAMENTALLY the UV pen kills bacteria by denaturing the fundamental proteins that the bacteria uses for sustaining life and its growth. Because there is sedement in the water you were preveiously filtering (assuming you werent using your old filter) it would make sense that you could just be tasting that. or possibly denatured proteins.
Posted by: Jeff

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 06:50 PM

Yeah, I am sure it was the floaters. I bought the little critter filter
for the streripen but haven't taking a trip with it yet. Scoop and
stir is faster than pumping. I will have to do a field taste trial.
Find a pure stream with some sediment. Scoop and drink and
then streripen the rest of the bottle and drink again to compare
taste.



Posted by: BorealHiker

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 07:39 PM

Ooof! Just checked your post. Sorry to hear. I agree, even under best conditions, it might best be one person/one SteriPen. And yes, the on/off switch isn't the easiest. Not knowing about your problems, I nonetheless began to think I might need an alternative.

I caught on to the SteriPen because it was invented locally (Blue Hill, ME) From what I have heard about the inventor, he'd be VERY interested in hearing your story.
Posted by: Rick_D

Re: filter vs steriPen - 03/01/10 11:06 PM

FWIW the UV Aquastar will be recast as a Camelbak UV thingie this spring:

Camelbak All Clear

Essentially the same configuration, but an LCD screen instead of the flashing LEDs. Threading is standard Nalgene so will fit on a variety of containers, hard and soft sided.

Cheers,