Ute S: Is it better to have a Biostone bioceramic filter or is an activated carbon filter sufficient?
Bioceramic filters also usually contain activated carbon. These advertising terms are used to describe filters that additionally contain elements from the semi-precious stone tourmaline. Tourmaline granules are also available as a bath additive, for example. Tourmalines emit “far infrared radiation” (FIR) and react to changes in temperature or pressure by releasing electrons.
EM bioceramics are also often mentioned, meaning that so-called “effective microorganisms” are also processed in them. These also include, for example, lactic acid bacteria. However, these are killed during the ceramic firing process, so their effective effect must be doubted. In fact, such filters initially produce a slightly lower redox potential in the same water ionizer than that water ionizer would produce under the same conditions with a pure activated carbon filter. These filters are therefore usually offered for devices with lower electrolysis strength. (—> Chemical water ionizers.) However, in my experience, this electrical effect of tourmaline diminishes significantly after just a few weeks of use and does not last until the next filter change.
Some find water that has been purified with a bioceramic filter to be tastier and more digestible than if it has only been purified with activated carbon. As unobjective as these statements may be, I personally don't feel any difference, but it is striking that I have never heard anyone say that water from a bioceramic filter tastes worse than that from a pure activated carbon filter. In any case, apart from the higher price, there is nothing fundamental against a bioceramic filter.
Excerpt from the book by Karl Heinz Asenbaum: “Electro-activated water – An invention with extraordinary potential. Water ionizers from A – Z”
Copyright 2016 www.euromultimedia.de
