Lifestraw finally available

I've been following the development of the Lifestraw water purifying "straw" for a number of years now. Highly portable, no moving parts, no batteries or power required, rated for 1,000L--sounds great, right?

It's been used successfully in Third World countries to reduce the burden of disease in these places by making clean water available. However, until recently recently, the Lifestraw was not available for retail sale and was only being distributed through aid organizations. Apparently, now they can be purchased. Anyone try these out yet?

It seems that the technology behind the Lifestraw has changed over time. The previous version used iodine-impregnanted beads as the primary purification method. There seems to be little to no info out on the actual technology in the current version, but it now seems to use some form of microfiltration membrane (think "reverse osmosis membrane" but with a larger pore size). The vacuum of sucking water through the Lifestraw is enough to move water through the membranes without any iodine taste that I assume the prior version imparted to the water.

I don't have one, but Amazon has it for $25: http://www.amazon.com/LifeStraw-Personal...6002&sr=8-1 .

I was just looking at water purification systems for a bug-out-bag. And here comes this thread, perfect timing! Thanks!

Looks like just cysts and bacteria, not virii, unless I'm reading it wrong. I'd rather have it than nothing but probably best used in conjunction with chemical treatment.

A chemical treatment takes time, iodine has a normal treatment time of
20min. Unless the iodine is in the water that long it is not dead, just passing thru an iodine bed will not kill the cooties.
IMO
The best bet going is the hollow fiber type unit, IIRC Sawyer was the first but all the major's have one now and all likely made in the same room. I bet hollow fibers are at the heart of the newer LifeStraw.

I just ordered two!

They are cheaper if you buy them direct from the master North America wholesaler, "EarthEasy". $19.95 each, $2.95 shipping for one, $3.15 shipping for two (to my Colorado address).

http://eartheasy.com/lifestraw

Buried down on that webpage is a blurb that says to send email to info@eartheasy.com if you want to be notified when the larger "LifeStraw Family" is available for purchase, expected sometime mid-2012.

i have mentioned previously that my SO was overseas doing NGO aid work in 3rd world countries for some years. Her take on the straw (and other similar products) is that although the straw probably does work as advertised, the downside is that these types of methods are slow and singular especially when you consider how much potable water a person needs per day. Also the fear of human cross contamination is a big factor as these straws are probably not stored nor sanitized and probably used by more then one person despite precautions. My SO also mentioned the cost of the straws. Even if they were $7-$10 per, there are not many aid agencies that could afford to equip hundreds or thousands of people with these straws as other mass water purification methods are much cheaper and more efficient on a large scale.

My take on the straws for what we would use them for is the real lack of advance use. Meaning that although you can safely drink through the straw as needed. it does you no good if you need to travel with water stored in bottles. Whereas other treatment methods allow you to treat water as needed and also that treated water then can be stored in bottles and taken with you and used where there may be no other replenishable water.

There is no perfect technique for purifying water, but I will continue to boil - it definitely takes care of the biological pathogens.

Personally, I think these LifeStraws are a fantastic device offered at a very inexpensive price.

My opening comments were based on your initial comments in the first 2 paragraphs of your original post....and also based on my SO's real world experience in 3rd world countries where water sanitation is a real challenge. I thought that information would of been useful or interesting but I guess not.

As for the effectiveness of the straw for personal use, that is up to the end user to decide. You posted and posed a question. I shared my thoughts on a possible shortcoming of the straw that perhaps others may not think of when purchasing these. If you don't appreciate my thoughts nor my SO's valuable experience and resorting to reply in such a snarky manner, then I will drop this forum...

Interesting device. I wonder how much suction is really required though. I can just imagine being worn out/tired/exhaused, then trying to suck the equivalent of a milkshake through a coffee stirrer.

And the lack of filtration to viruses could be problematic. Ie, polio, hep A, JC and BK viruses... though all relatively rare. Though typically the bacterial and protozoan stuff is more worrisome.

I am sorry. I think you took my response in the wrong way. Not as I intended. I was justifying the LifeStraw for use in a BOB. You listed some valid problems with it for third world country disaster relief. But I'm not looking at it for that. So I simply meant to show how those concerns don't bother me, for my intended BOB use of the product.

Honestly, I was not trying to be snarky. If you have read any of my other posts, you will agree that I am usually very wordy. So this time I thought I would respond more concisely, and in-line with your other comments (I rarely, rarely do an in-line response). I was trying to keep from boring people with my usual wordiness, not to be snarky. And I apologize that it came off that way. That was not my intent.

I really do think this LifeStraw is a neat item for a BOB. Where it would be used infrequently, during emergencies, by people who are generally educated enough to understand how to use it properly, by folks who generally make enough money to easily afford to buy a few for their family, that live in families that are generally healthy enough to not have to worry about cross-contamination from their own family members. I can't comment on it's practical use in third world countries other than to say it's far better than nothing for the poor folks that have to worry about bad drinking water every day of their lives.

ramdom thoughts:

while it might be perfect for emergency back-up and storage in mini survival kits simply by virtue of being small/light and being used instantly, if its like other "straw" filters:

-they're only used for direct-drinking
-cannot be used for cleaning cooking water or washing water
-clog easily
-cannot be cleaned
-do not kill viruses (not much of a problem in US/Canada)
-often fairly delicate
-usually have a high cost per gallon (although at 1000L is amazing if true and it doesn't get clogged up along the way...)
-once used it remains wet inside with no way to dry out
-isn't as effective as some other methods

not saying it doesn't have a good use, just a limited one.

Since Giardia is a big concern in the US and person to person
is how a lot of it is transmitted, one should be very careful
if this is used by more than one person.

Are you saying getting giardia from cross-contamination is MORE of a risk with the Lifestraw than, say, some pump? Because giardia is generally not transmitted mouth-to-mouth AFAIK. It is primarily oral-fecal, so any object you share with someone could conceivably be contaminated, like a cup, not just a Lifestraw.

The manufacturer does recommend backwashing by blowing water out of it at least daily (it was designed primarily to be used daily, after all). However, the flow rate from one of their online docs does show a flow reduction over time, which is certainly not unexpected for a sealed product like this. The backwashing probably mostly clears sediment from the more coarse pre-filter portion on the tip. Not sure if it does much for the interior parts.

I read another doc where a lab did test up to 1,600L (so 160% of rated capacity) through the Lifestraw and I believe the purifying performance was still satisfactory at that point IIRC.

Possibly, as you put your mouth directly on the same part of the
equipment as everyone's hands would go. You may be more
careful with a cup, since from childhood we are aware of drinking from cups and the hazards of sharing. One
would more likely hold a cup by the handle not the lip.
A pump type filter would somewhat more isolate germs carried
by the hands.

Sharing a filter or cup of any kind may actually put one in
more hazard of getting Giardia than drinking straight from
some sources.


Wash your hands in any case.

I ordered one. I'm a believer in boiling but I do carry chlorine dioxide as well. This will be another potentially useful tool for the toolkit, and will be handy to have with me.

Just like the redundancy of fire making gear/knowledge,you really can't have Too much,as far as Lifesaving hydration is concerned & What would one carry in place of this Lifestraw?It obviously isn't going to be a burdensome displacement of other gear,& plenty more knowledge gained.Plenty cheap enough as well,being layed-up in a hospital isn't much fun at all nor cheap!

Just got mine in the mail. They are VERY light... I'd like to find some sort of protective container to put them in so I can throw it in my bag without worrying about it getting damaged

You didn't supply pics or dimensions but maybe an old Epi-Pen container would work? Ask a friend who has severe allergies if the have one would be my suggestion.

"..although you can safely drink through the straw as needed. it does you no good if you need to travel with water stored in bottles. Whereas other treatment methods allow you to treat water as needed and also that treated water then can be stored in bottles and taken with you and used where there may be no other replenishable water."

I've been thinking about this exact thing lately, Teslinhiker. Is there any reason why you couldn't take a container full of untreated water with you and use the filter straw when you want a sip? I've never heard of anyone doing that and it's always been pointed put as a downfall of this type of product.

Could it be that bacteria and virus might build up in a concentrated space like a water bottle?

I see no reason why you couldn't use it this way. Just make sure to remember that this container is contaminated until the next time you wash/disinfect it.

Or with a container like a stainless bottle, if you ever stop and boil water in it, say for a spot of tea or for a freeze dried meal, the bottle should be sterilized if you make sure to let it heat all the way to the mouth of the container.

I know, I know--if you can boil water why use something like a Lifestraw? Well, if fuel or time are concerns, something like a Lifestraw has its advantages. Every product has strengths and weaknesses. The trick is to pick the one (or combination of products) that best meet your requirements.

Theoretically, the bacteria count could be increasing in your container if there is organic matter in the water to feed them, but any good water purifying product should still be able to handle it IMHO.

duh...


duh... (with sound of hand slapping side of head)

why hasn't anyone else suggested that in all these years of reading about straws? but of course!

plain simple logic is sometimes the hardest thing to find. nice going bacpacjac!

LOL! It just dawned on me the other day. Seems simple enough but there must be a reason why nobody seems to do it.

i too await any good reasons anyone can offer.

Bacpac, to answer your question directly.

At first glance, the concept of carrying untreated water to be used with a filtration straw at a later time, seems sound. However I can give you a real life scneario which occurred over the May long weekend that illustrates why carrying clean, treated water is a better idea in terms of time saved and ease of use.

We were hiking with another couple and our female friend slipped and took a bit of a tumble on some wet, off canter ground. She went down and although she did not receive any serious injuries, her left hand took a jagged cut from the protruding rocks.

We had to first use our carried, bottled water to wash away the mud and debris from her hand before the cut could actually be treated which only took a few minutes after. Had we not been carrying clean, treated water and had to use potentailly contaminated water to clean around the cut, the risk of infection increases which could of ended a planned 3 day hike. Had we not had available treated water, yes we could of brought out the stove then boiled and heated the water then waited for it too cool a bit so that it could be used, however by having treated water always available (when possible) makes more sense.

I am not against using these types of straws, however people need to be aware that depending on these alone may not always be the wisest choice and when it comes to water, having available amounts and redundant plans in place is vitally important.

Ah ha! That's a very good reason to carry clean water, Teslinhiker. It's one of my arguments for carrying more light than some people do. You just never know when you might need to do first aid.

I'm still curious about the drinking safety question though.

Removing the water from it's usually cooler source such as a lake or stream and leaving it untreated in an environment such as a water bottle that is subject to potentially warmer temperatures, would all in probability cause the bacteria count to increase. How much of an increase is the question, but I would think that any of the straws or chemical treatments such as MicroPur would still suffice.

Wise advice. Then again, quite a few hikers (typically the ultralight crowd) do not carry water, and practice "cameling up" by drinking at water sources along the way.

Not sure how they plan ahead for injuries that might require wound irrigation. I guess they're just accepting the risk.

no agreement that carrying clean water is preferred, but should one find themselves with only a "straw" and an empty bottle (ie: your other purifiers are lost or broken), bacpacjac's concept sure looks like a smart way to get by.

Lifestraw would work well with a SODIS system.

Carry the untreated water in a two liter clear pop bottle in the
sunshine and the UV will dispatch a good number of any bacteria in the water. Then the lifestraw would get any remaining.

FYI - a 2-page discussion on some of the negative aspects of using the SODIS system can be found in this thread:

http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1045130#post1045130

If you happen to be carrying only untreated water for use with your LifeStraw and then come upon an emergency need for medical irrigation, what's wrong with dropping about a cc or more of liquid iodine into your untreated water? (borrow the iodine from the medical supplies you are carrying) The water would be safe enough for irrigation use in a few minutes.

Of course, who wouldn't prefer to have unlimited clean water available at all times? But I see no reason to limit yourself to only one method of water treatment. Carry iodine (itsy-bitsy small and lightweight). Carry MicroPur (itsy-bitsy small and lightweight). Carry a LifeStraw (a bit larger than the first two things, but much lighter than a conventional pump filtration device). Carry equipment for boiling water. Carry a pump filter too if that's what you prefer. But I think I would feel comfortable enough leaving that out for BOB use. Two chemicals, fire, and a LifeStraw sounds like a decent enough group to take care of my anticipated needs. For something that in all reality I will most likely never use, just keep it in my BOB, I figure the LifeStraw at $19 is a suitable enough replacement for a pump filter at $80+. I wouldn't knock someone who wanted to carry a pump filter though. We all make choices based on what we foresee as our potential needs.

I don't think SODIS works at my 40 degrees north latitude. But that is something that would be useful near the equator.

That has certainly be suggested in the past, although now we're getting away from the Lifestraw and onto wound care.

Keep a ziploc or other small plastic bag handy, drop some chemical treatment into the water and put a pin prick in it so make an ad hoc wound irrigator. I think the last time the idea came up, someone was asking about dropping those povidone-iodine wipes into some water for this purpose.

No negative things about SODIS in PET bottles so far in tests.

For example-

"Negative genotoxicity results were obtained for water samples that had been in PET bottles and exposed to normal SODIS conditions (strong natural sunlight) over 6 months"

Journal of Water and Health

http://www.iwaponline.com/jwh/008/jwh0080712.htm

---

"A simple water treatment process called SODIS (solar water disinfection) consists of filling polluted
water in PET bottles that are exposed to sunlight for 5–6 hours. However, sunlight does not only
destroy disease-causing microorganisms found in the water but also transforms the plastic material
into photoproducts. Laboratory and field tests revealed that these photoproducts are generated at
the outer surface of the bottles. No indication for migration of possible photoproducts or additives
from PET bottles into water was observed with the applied analytical methods."

From Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA | 50.3 | 2001

SODIS doesn't sterilize water, just reduce the load of
living pathogens. Higher latitudes reduce the effectiveness, but when combined with other water purification methods might be useful in many situations.

"Since the early days of SODIS it has been widely accepted that SODIS only works in the “35 degree window,” that is, the region between 35° North latitude and 35° South latitude. There is plenty of evidence that the “middle” of our planet gets the most direct sunlight (which is, of course, intuitively obvious), but there has been very little investigation into the relative effectiveness of SODIS at different latitudes. It is known that latitude is not the only factor effecting solar intensity (geographic and climactic factors, as well as altitude are also important), and that solar intensity is not the only factor effecting SODIS (temperature can be an important parameter as well), so the 35° window is probably a simplistic approach. In fact, there is evidence that even at latitudes north of 40°, SODIS can be effective, at least in the summer months. Sunlight intensity in Toronto on June 21 is higher than at the equator."

http://www.waterschool.com/faqs/

great info clearwater. thank you!