(206) 949-5683, Top Rated Plumber, Seattle
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Filox sizing questions (or MangOX) and...preferences?

  1. #1
    DIY Junior Member bdiggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    3

    Default Filox sizing questions (or MangOX) and...preferences?

    Hello! I am looking at a Filox (or even a MangOx) iron & manganese filter but might have to undersize for my peak service flow rates in order to have enough for the maximum (warm water) backwash rate...here is what I was wondering:

    When you undersize, do you get the undersized % of total rated removal, or does it just remove that % of contaminates at lower flow rates?

    For example, Filox is rated to remove 15ppm iron, 7ppm Hydrogen Sulfide, and 3.0ppm Manganese at 6.0GPM cu/ft. So, if I had a 1 cu ft system, and .5ppm Manganese at a 9GPM service flow (making the system 33% undersized at that moment), would it, in theory, remove all of it at that moment (up to almost 2ppm Manganese or 66% of its total rating), or, would it just remove 66% of my .5ppm manganese, leaving about .167ppm in the water?


    Thank you! Also, do you guys have any preferences on Filox vs. MangOx (also known as Catalox). I don't have the backwash rates to support Pyrolox, and see some rating differences in Filox and MangOx (backwash and weight seems to be lower in Filox, MangOx has slightly higher ppm ratings on Manganese but lower on Hydrogen Sulfide, and seems to be a little bit more pure). Also, there's the different screen sizes. Does any of that matter or is MangOX basically just a slightly more pure (but heavier to backwash) version of Filox?

  2. #2
    DIY Senior Member Reach4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Birm does not require as much backwash rate as some others.

  3. #3
    Water systems designer, R&D ditttohead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,707
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Birm and Pyrolox can not be compared. Birm has trace amounts of Manganese Dioxide, Mangox and Pyrolox are mined Manganes Dioxide.

    Both medias are popular but are used in totally different applications. Their is a new Hybrid media that is being released by the end of the year that should replace most of my Filox and Birm applications. We are already completely sold out of our first few pallets and we have not received the media yet.

    bdiggs, I sent you a PM re: this new media.

  4. #4
    DIY Junior Member bdiggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Thanks for the posts and PM's y'all. I looked at Birm and may could size it correctly, but, was interested in the longevity and "more power" available in the heavy Manganese Dioxide medias.

    That being said - only have about .5ppm of each iron and manganese in equal parts...would the OX medias remove this even if undersized by about 50%?

    Also, that new stuff looks pretty interesting!!

  5. #5
    DIY Senior Member Reach4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    A water softener could deal with those levels of iron and manganese. No sulfur?

    Why do you you think you may not be able to do a sufficient backwash rate for heavier media? Backwashing is generally done in the middle of the night.

  6. #6
    DIY Junior Member bdiggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hey! I have thought about using a water softener alone...maybe one with fine mesh resin also for the task (even though that might be overkill...I don't know, what do you guys think about that and what is the pressure drop on those compared to standard?).

    I guess we have just had staining of laundry, etc. for so long probably due to the iron & manganese, given the years the filter could go and could preserve the resin of the softener over years of usage, I didn't mind going ahead and putting an iron filter ahead of the softener.

    I can only do about 10+ GPM with the pump, that being said, I've often wondered if the water that was in my pressure tank already would flow at a much higher GPM (restricted only by pressure and pipe size) until the pump kicks on.

    I'd like to get about a 7-10GPM service flow, and 1.5cu ft of Filox in a 10'' tank that is rated at 8 or 9GPM needs about 7.5-12.1GPM it looks like (I'm mixing the highest and lowest end of different sources) depending on whether or not the water is cold or not (the colder the lower). I would have the cooler water coming out of the well, but, figure the water in the above ground pressure tank might not be in the sub 60 or 50 degree range required for the minimum backwash rates during the summers and we are going to upgrade that to a pretty large tank soon. So, to make sure that the maximum backwash rate was covered by my pump, that would put me in about 1.0cu ft of filox in a 9'' tank (max backwash shows 9.7 from one source, minimum backwash 6.6 (or even 5.3 from another)), but the service flow is only rated at about 6GPM with that setup. If my "flows faster out of the pressure tank than the pump can pump" theory held any water, maybe I'd be covered either way!! (warm water would flow at a faster rate from the tank, until colder and then finally cold water at the slower rate pumped from the well itself), but I didn't know if I wanted risk it, having my max pump GPM near the middle of the backwash range for the 1.5cu ft setup.

    Thank you for the PM message about your setup! I'm off to read it.

  7. #7
    Water systems designer, R&D ditttohead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,707
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Actually, Filox/Pyrolox, etc need about 25 GM per Sq. Ft. of bed area to properly backwash. Some of the spec sheets show lower backwash rates, but anyone who has been in the field working with those medias knows that they need at least the 25 GPM per Sq. Ft, preferably 30. A 10" tank should be backwashed at no less than 13-14 GPM, we suually try to do 15 GPM. The good thing is that at these very high backwash rates, they only need a few minutes of backwashing, not the common 10 minutes. A lot of well systems cant handle these higher flow rates so splitting the flow across 2 tanks instead of a single is always a good solution.

    That low of iron is easy, the Manganese would be the problem, .5 is a good, a softener would take care of it but it is not the most efficient way of doing it. I would recommend an acid drip system to help keep the resin clean. What is your hardness? The manganes and iron would be equal to about 15 grains of hardness added to your calium/magnesium.

Similar Threads

  1. backwash Mangox filter from storage tank instead of well?
    By lifespeed in forum Water Softener Forum, problems, installation and reviews
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-09-2012, 06:10 AM
  2. faucet / toilet supply risers and stop valve preferences?
    By Stu27 in forum Plumbing Forum, Professional & DIY Advice, Tips & Tricks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2011, 05:03 PM
  3. New member's questions. pressure tank sizing
    By DeeJay in forum Pumps and Tanks Well Forum & Blog
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 02:08 PM
  4. Sizing, I'm sure the forum is tired of these questions...
    By mooch91 in forum Water Softener Forum, problems, installation and reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 05:54 AM
  5. A few Fleck valve questions and sizing help
    By tmp9a59 in forum Water Softener Forum, problems, installation and reviews
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-28-2010, 07:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •