Product Details
Product details have been supplied by the Manufacturer, and are hosted by a third party.
INTRODUCING THE CIRCLE REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM
Many reverse osmosis (RO) systems today are bulky, difficult to install, and require electricity and pumps to operate. Most concerning the fact that conventional RO systems are extremely inefficient, wasting up to 24 gallons of water for every gallon of drinkable water.
Brondell’s Circle Reverse Osmosis Water Filtration System utilizes patented new technology to eliminate back pressure, making it up to 10 times more efficient than current conventional RO systems. Additionally, the Circle RO Water Filter eliminates any need for electricity with its combination of the Smart Valve and Flexible Inner Tank. By integrating the tank and filters, Brondell’s Circle is an all-in-one, easy-to-install complete system.
does anyone have this unit? Im in a condo and don't have a lot of space and like the fact it doesn't have a big tank to go along with it...but the unit is big itself
soupmaster666 wrote: ↑
RO is wasteful, potentially unhealthy, and surprisingly high maintenance.
It's wasteful because half the water is wasted in the treatment process.
It's potentially totally unhealthy because it has no minerals in it. If you cook food in tap water, some portion of the minerals in the food will certainly leach out into the water, but not all that much. RO water has NO minerals, so it will leach them from your food until it reaches a balance (which is not going to happen). Likewise with the human body - everything that comes out is full of minerals. If you don't drink any in your water, that's a net loss. Despite having relatively low amounts, the loss of calcium and magnesium in average tap water is thought to be very impactful to bone health, an impact not mitigated by suppliments.
Reverse Osmosis systems are high maintenance because the filters, housings, lines, and pressure tank need regular sanitizing. You have to be extremely careful not to contaminate anything during filter replacements. Generally sanitizing is annually. The RO process removes chlorine so there's nothing left to inhibit bacteria growth, bleach has to do it instead, and if bacteria gets in to some pressure tanks it can live on the tank bladder and be hard to remove.
On health: a big study looked at a city in Russia which used RO desalination for their water supply, compared to all the neighboring cities on wells. The researchers could clearly identify from peoples' bones if they were from that city or not, based on theineral loss. That's referenced in the WHO's document on RO safety.
some of what you say I concur with but apparently this one is 10X more efficient and also i guess you havnt tasted the water in Orillia
soupmaster666 wrote: ↑
RO is wasteful, potentially unhealthy, and surprisingly high maintenance.
It's wasteful because half the water is wasted in the treatment process.
It's potentially totally unhealthy because it has no minerals in it. If you cook food in tap water, some portion of the minerals in the food will certainly leach out into the water, but not all that much. RO water has NO minerals, so it will leach them from your food until it reaches a balance (which is not going to happen). Likewise with the human body - everything that comes out is full of minerals. If you don't drink any in your water, that's a net loss. Despite having relatively low amounts, the loss of calcium and magnesium in average tap water is thought to be very impactful to bone health, an impact not mitigated by suppliments.
Reverse Osmosis systems are high maintenance because the filters, housings, lines, and pressure tank need regular sanitizing. You have to be extremely careful not to contaminate anything during filter replacements. Generally sanitizing is annually. The RO process removes chlorine so there's nothing left to inhibit bacteria growth, bleach has to do it instead, and if bacteria gets in to some pressure tanks it can live on the tank bladder and be hard to remove.
On health: a big study looked at a city in Russia which used RO desalination for their water supply, compared to all the neighboring cities on wells. The researchers could clearly identify from peoples' bones if they were from that city or not, based on theineral loss. That's referenced in the WHO's document on RO safety.
dogger99 wrote: ↑
does anyone have this unit? Im in a condo and don't have a lot of space and like the fact it doesn't have a big tank to go along with it...but the unit is big itself
I just installed one. The unit is pretty big - the tank is in the casing, along with 4 filters
soupmaster666 wrote: ↑RO is wasteful, potentially unhealthy, and surprisingly high maintenance.
It's wasteful because half the water is wasted in the treatment process.
It's potentially totally unhealthy because it has no minerals in it. If you cook food in tap water, some portion of the minerals in the food will certainly leach out into the water, but not all that much. RO water has NO minerals, so it will leach them from your food until it reaches a balance (which is not going to happen). Likewise with the human body - everything that comes out is full of minerals. If you don't drink any in your water, that's a net loss. Despite having relatively low amounts, the loss of calcium and magnesium in average tap water is thought to be very impactful to bone health, an impact not mitigated by suppliments.
Reverse Osmosis systems are high maintenance because the filters, housings, lines, and pressure tank need regular sanitizing. You have to be extremely careful not to contaminate anything during filter replacements. Generally sanitizing is annually. The RO process removes chlorine so there's nothing left to inhibit bacteria growth, bleach has to do it instead, and if bacteria gets in to some pressure tanks it can live on the tank bladder and be hard to remove.
On health: a big study looked at a city in Russia which used RO desalination for their water supply, compared to all the neighboring cities on wells. The researchers could clearly identify from peoples' bones if they were from that city or not, based on theineral loss. That's referenced in the WHO's document on RO safety.
What kind of filtration is Brita? Should I stop using it? Or are there benefits?
dogger99 wrote: ↑
thats what i love about this unit...how was the install? i have plastic pipes so i hope its not going to be a problem
Pretty easy to install. It provides a t-connector for water in, then for drain line, you just drill a hole on the drain PVC pipes and attach the saddle valve.
Often times, the difficulty comes in fixing existing plumbing. Mine had some old saddle valve on the copper water in line. I had to get that sealed up.
soupmaster666 wrote: ↑
RO is wasteful, potentially unhealthy, and surprisingly high maintenance.
It's wasteful because half the water is wasted in the treatment process.
It's potentially totally unhealthy because it has no minerals in it. If you cook food in tap water, some portion of the minerals in the food will certainly leach out into the water, but not all that much. RO water has NO minerals, so it will leach them from your food until it reaches a balance (which is not going to happen). Likewise with the human body - everything that comes out is full of minerals. If you don't drink any in your water, that's a net loss. Despite having relatively low amounts, the loss of calcium and magnesium in average tap water is thought to be very impactful to bone health, an impact not mitigated by suppliments.
Reverse Osmosis systems are high maintenance because the filters, housings, lines, and pressure tank need regular sanitizing. You have to be extremely careful not to contaminate anything during filter replacements. Generally sanitizing is annually. The RO process removes chlorine so there's nothing left to inhibit bacteria growth, bleach has to do it instead, and if bacteria gets in to some pressure tanks it can live on the tank bladder and be hard to remove.
On health: a big study looked at a city in Russia which used RO desalination for their water supply, compared to all the neighboring cities on wells. The researchers could clearly identify from peoples' bones if they were from that city or not, based on theineral loss. That's referenced in the WHO's document on RO safety.
High maintenance? I haven't changed my filter in over a year. We fill 2, 5 gallon jugs per week. Water still hardly registers any ppm! We have the $180 5 stage from HD.
RO water isn't just for human consumption. I purchase it in 5 gallon containers for my ultrasonic humidifier at $3/jug (from Canadian Tire).
I also know people that have purchased a system just to use for their morning coffee (apparently they can taste a difference). Most people I know with RO systems only have a single tap of RO water and don't limit their consumption of fluids to that single faucet.
soupmaster666 wrote: ↑RO is wasteful, potentially unhealthy, and surprisingly high maintenance.
It's wasteful because half the water is wasted in the treatment process.
It's potentially totally unhealthy because it has no minerals in it. If you cook food in tap water, some portion of the minerals in the food will certainly leach out into the water, but not all that much. RO water has NO minerals, so it will leach them from your food until it reaches a balance (which is not going to happen). Likewise with the human body - everything that comes out is full of minerals. If you don't drink any in your water, that's a net loss. Despite having relatively low amounts, the loss of calcium and magnesium in average tap water is thought to be very impactful to bone health, an impact not mitigated by suppliments.
Reverse Osmosis systems are high maintenance because the filters, housings, lines, and pressure tank need regular sanitizing. You have to be extremely careful not to contaminate anything during filter replacements. Generally sanitizing is annually. The RO process removes chlorine so there's nothing left to inhibit bacteria growth, bleach has to do it instead, and if bacteria gets in to some pressure tanks it can live on the tank bladder and be hard to remove.
On health: a big study looked at a city in Russia which used RO desalination for their water supply, compared to all the neighboring cities on wells. The researchers could clearly identify from peoples' bones if they were from that city or not, based on theineral loss. That's referenced in the WHO's document on RO safety.
People and corporations dump stuff into water and into the ground that makes its way back into drinking water. RO removes those contaminants.
Most of your minerals should come from your diet and not the water that you drink.
Changing out the filters once a year is not a big deal.
I was going to buy this last year at the same price but I ended up getting a standard RO system with the tank to replace our aging system.
The Brondell unit was incredibly attractive for being small and less wasteful water wise.
However it is entirely proprietary, you have to get the H2O+ Circle filters and membranes which are more expensive, and there is one year warranty on the device, so if anything leaks or breaks within it, you would have to contact Brondell directly.
As opposed, for standard RO systems, parts are easily accessible to replace, cheaper to maintain (arguable… cheaper membrane/filter price vs water savings?). The downside is that it takes up more space and potentially wastes more water.
some people use it to get certain types of fish to breed as well
pbtech wrote: ↑
RO water isn't just for human consumption. I purchase it in 5 gallon containers for my ultrasonic humidifier at $3/jug (from Canadian Tire).
I also know people that have purchased a system just to use for their morning coffee (apparently they can taste a difference). Most people I know with RO systems only have a single tap of RO water and don't limit their consumption of fluids to that single faucet.
