Hi, I'm Kevin M.. I live in Houston. Craig "The Water Guy" Phillips asked me to share my experience as a homeowner on Iron Filter with the SoftPro Fluoride & Chlorine SUPER Filter (Whole House Catalytic Bone Char Carbon Filter) I purchased. This is how my adventures played out. I hope this helps you in your decision.
When my daughter started having red, itchy eyes and uncontrollable sneezing every time she showered, I knew something had to change. We're on city water here in North Carolina, and while I'd always assumed municipal water was "safe," the reality of what was coming through our taps became impossible to ignore.
After months of watching her suffer through what seemed like daily allergic reactions to our water, I decided to dive deep into water filtration solutions. What I discovered about our municipal water supply shocked me, and what I learned about the SoftPro Whole House Upflow Catalytic Bone Char Carbon Water Filter changed everything for our family.
Eight months later, my daughter calls this system "a miracle" – and honestly, after living with it daily, I can see why. But getting to this point involved extensive research, a significant investment, and learning curve that I want to share with anyone facing similar water quality issues.
The Wake-Up Call: When "Safe" City Water Isn't Safe Enough
For years, I'd taken our municipal water for granted. Sure, it passed EPA standards and arrived crystal clear from our taps, but I never considered what "safe" actually meant in practical terms for my family's daily comfort and health.
The problems started subtly. My daughter would emerge from showers with noticeably red, irritated eyes. At first, we blamed it on soap or shampoo sensitivity. We switched to hypoallergenic products, tried different brands, even installed a basic showerhead filter. Nothing helped.
Then the sneezing started. Every single shower triggered what looked like an intense allergic reaction – violent sneezing fits that would last 10-15 minutes after she finished washing. As a parent, watching your child suffer through something as basic as personal hygiene becomes heartbreaking quickly.
Did you know that municipal water treatment facilities are only required to remove contaminants to "safe" levels, not eliminate them entirely?
I didn't either until I started researching.
Our city water, while meeting federal standards, still contained chlorine, chloramines, fluoride compounds, and trace amounts of industrial chemicals that accumulate in municipal systems. The chlorine levels that prevent bacterial growth in distribution pipes can wreak havoc on sensitive skin, eyes, and respiratory systems – especially in enclosed shower environments where these chemicals become airborne.
I tested our incoming water and found chlorine levels consistently measuring 2.8-3.2 PPM, well within "acceptable" ranges but apparently high enough to trigger my daughter's reactions. The chloramine levels, used as a longer-lasting disinfectant, registered even higher during certain times of year when the city increased treatment protocols.
Beyond the immediate comfort issues, I learned these chemicals were potentially affecting our entire household in ways I hadn't considered. Our coffee tasted flat, our ice cubes had an odd aftertaste, and even our houseplants seemed to struggle despite regular watering. The cumulative effect of daily exposure to treated municipal water was becoming impossible to ignore.
Research Journey: Discovering What We Really Needed
Once I understood the scope of our water quality issues, I threw myself into researching solutions. The options seemed endless – point-of-use filters, reverse osmosis systems, basic carbon filters, and whole-house systems ranging from simple sediment removal to complex multi-stage treatment.
Initially, I gravitated toward simple solutions. Countertop filters seemed economical and easy, but they only addressed drinking water, not the shower issues causing my daughter's reactions. Showerhead filters helped marginally but required frequent replacement and didn't tackle the whole-house problem I was beginning to recognize.
Reverse osmosis systems kept appearing in my research, but the more I learned, the less suitable they seemed for our needs. RO excels at removing dissolved minerals and specific contaminants, but the systems I could afford only covered kitchen sinks. Whole-house RO systems cost $3,000-5,000 and waste enormous amounts of water – problematic both environmentally and financially.
Carbon filtration kept emerging as the most practical approach for our specific contaminants. Standard granulated activated carbon (GAC) systems remove chlorine effectively and improve taste, but I learned they struggle with chloramines and certain chemical compounds that our municipal system used seasonally.
That's when I discovered catalytic carbon technology. Unlike standard carbon media, catalytic carbon creates a chemical reaction that breaks down chloramines into components that can then be filtered out. This seemed crucial for our situation, since chloramines appeared to be a major contributor to my daughter's reactions.
The bone char component intrigued me further. Bone char carbon, derived from cattle bones processed at high temperatures, excels at removing fluoride compounds – something standard carbon filters can't touch. Our municipal water contains 0.8-1.2 PPM fluoride, and while I'm not anti-fluoride for dental health, I'd read studies suggesting high concentrations might contribute to skin sensitivity in some individuals.
After weeks of research, I'd narrowed my requirements:
• Whole-house solution to address shower and general water quality
• Catalytic carbon for chloramine removal
• Bone char capability for fluoride reduction
• Flow rate adequate for our household (3-4 GPM peak demand)
• Maintenance schedule I could realistically follow
• Initial cost under $2,000 with reasonable ongoing expenses
The SoftPro Whole House Upflow Catalytic Bone Char Carbon Water Filter checked every box.
Why This System Won: Technical Features That Made the Difference
Several factors ultimately convinced me the SoftPro system was our best option, but the technical specifications sealed the deal.
The upflow design immediately stood out. Most carbon filters use downflow operation, where water enters at the top and flows down through the media. This approach works but can create channeling – water finds the path of least resistance and potentially bypasses untouched carbon media, reducing contact time and filtration effectiveness.
SoftPro's upflow configuration forces water to enter at the bottom and flow upward through the carbon bed. This design ensures more uniform media utilization and longer contact time between water and filtration materials. In practical terms, it means better contaminant removal and longer media life before replacement becomes necessary.
The dual-media approach really impressed me technically. The system combines catalytic carbon with bone char in a single vessel, handling both chloramine destruction and fluoride removal simultaneously. Most comparable systems require separate tanks or multiple filtration stages, increasing complexity, space requirements, and maintenance burdens.
Flow rate specifications matched our household needs perfectly. The system maintains 6-8 GPM flow rate with minimal pressure drop – crucial for our peak usage scenarios when multiple fixtures operate simultaneously. I'd learned from researching other systems that inadequate flow rates create frustrating pressure problems during normal household routines.
The carbon capacity impressed me: 1.5 cubic feet of catalytic carbon plus 0.5 cubic feet of bone char media. Based on our water usage patterns (approximately 400 gallons daily) and incoming contaminant levels, this translated to roughly 12-18 months between media replacement – reasonable for both convenience and ongoing costs.
NSF certification provided crucial credibility. The system carries NSF Standard 42 certification for chlorine removal and taste/odor improvement. While not every component claims specific NSF standards (bone char for fluoride isn't universally certified), the chlorine removal certification gave me confidence in the primary filtration technology.
Installation Day: First Impressions and Setup Reality
The system arrived in a substantial wooden crate that immediately conveyed quality construction. Unpacking revealed a 48-inch tall fiberglass tank, control valve assembly, bypass valve kit, and comprehensive installation hardware. Everything felt robust and well-manufactured – no cheap plastic components or flimsy construction that plague some water treatment equipment.
The control valve impressed me most. The Fleck 5600SXT digital controller features a clear LCD display, intuitive programming interface, and robust mechanical construction. After researching control valve brands extensively, Fleck consistently appeared in professional installations and earned positive reviews for reliability and longevity.
Pre-installation preparation required more consideration than I'd anticipated. The system measures 10 inches in diameter and stands 48 inches tall – not massive, but requiring adequate clearance for maintenance access. I'd planned to install it in our basement utility room, but had to relocate some storage to ensure proper working space around the unit.
Plumbing requirements seemed straightforward: 1-inch main line connections, drain line for backwash cycles, and 110V electrical supply for the control valve. However, our existing plumbing configuration required modifications I hadn't fully anticipated. Our main water line entered through 3/4-inch copper, necessitating some replumbing to optimize flow rates and accommodate the bypass valve assembly.
I chose professional installation despite my moderate DIY skills. The plumbing modifications, electrical connections, and system programming seemed complex enough to warrant expert handling. My installer, a certified water treatment technician, completed the job in approximately 4 hours including the necessary plumbing adjustments.
Initial startup involved programming the control valve for our water conditions and household usage patterns. The technician set regeneration frequency, backwash duration, and service flow rates based on our specific requirements. Watching the first backwash cycle, I was amazed at the murky water flowing to drain – evidence of sediment and contaminants being purged from the new carbon media.
Performance Testing: Measuring Real-World Results
Within 24 hours of installation, I began systematic testing to document the system's performance against our baseline water quality measurements.
Chlorine removal exceeded expectations immediately. Pre-filtration levels consistently measured 2.8-3.2 PPM using standard pool testing strips. Post-filtration measurements showed zero detectable chlorine – complete removal that I could verify through smell, taste, and chemical testing. The difference was immediately noticeable: no more chemical odor when running water, and our coffee quality improved dramatically overnight.
Chloramine reduction proved more challenging to measure with home testing equipment, but indicators suggested significant improvement. The sharp, medicinal odor that occasionally plagued our water during heavy municipal treatment periods disappeared entirely. More importantly, my daughter's shower reactions stopped within three days of system activation.
Fluoride reduction required professional testing since reliable home test kits aren't readily available. After two weeks of operation, I had water samples analyzed by a local laboratory. Results showed fluoride levels dropped from 1.1 PPM to 0.3 PPM – a 73% reduction that exceeded my expectations for bone char performance in a single-pass system.
Flow rate and pressure performance met specifications perfectly. Even during peak usage scenarios – simultaneous showers, dishwasher operation, and laundry cycles – I measured only a Fluoride Filtration 2-3 PSI pressure drop across the system. Our municipal supply delivers 52-55 PSI, and post-filtration pressure consistently maintained 49-52 PSI throughout the house.
Taste and odor improvements were immediately apparent and consistently positive. Water developed a clean, neutral taste without the flat or chemical characteristics we'd grown accustomed to. Ice cubes lost their cloudy appearance and odd aftertaste. Even our houseplants seemed to respond positively, though I acknowledge this might be psychological rather than measurable improvement.
After three months of operation, I conducted comprehensive testing again to verify sustained performance. Chlorine removal remained at zero detection levels, fluoride reduction held steady around 70%, and flow characteristics remained unchanged. The system's performance appeared consistent and reliable through varying seasonal water conditions.
Daily Life Impact: The Real-World Difference
The immediate transformation in my daughter's comfort level was dramatic and sustained. Her post-shower eye irritation disappeared completely within a week of installation. The violent sneezing episodes that had plagued every shower for months simply stopped occurring. Eight months later, she can shower normally without any of the reactions that originally prompted our water treatment investment.
Beyond solving our primary problem, the system created numerous unexpected lifestyle improvements throughout our household.
Our morning coffee routine transformed entirely. Previously, we'd grown accustomed to a slightly flat, chemical-tinged taste that I'd attributed to our brewing method or bean quality. With filtered water, coffee developed rich, complex flavors we'd never experienced at home. The difference was so pronounced that we started buying higher-quality beans since we could actually taste their unique characteristics.
Cooking improvements surprised me as well. Rice cooked more evenly and tasted cleaner. Pasta water didn't foam excessively. Ice cubes became crystal clear and tasteless instead of cloudy with a subtle chemical flavor. Even our bread machine produced better results – apparently chlorine can interfere with yeast activity in ways I'd never considered.
Houseplant health improved noticeably, though I can't definitively attribute this to water filtration alone. Our indoor plants seemed more vibrant, grew more consistently, and required less frequent replacement. Plants particularly sensitive to water quality, like our peace lily and spider plants, showed marked improvement in leaf color and growth patterns.
Laundry benefits became apparent gradually. Whites stayed whiter longer, and colored fabrics seemed to retain their vibrancy through more wash cycles. While I didn't conduct scientific testing, our clothes appeared to last longer and maintain their appearance better than before filtration.
Skin and hair improvements were subtle but noticeable. My wife mentioned her skin felt less dry after showers, and her hair seemed more manageable. While these changes weren't dramatic like my daughter's eye irritation relief, they represented welcome quality-of-life improvements we hadn't anticipated.
Guests consistently commented on our water quality without prompting. Visitors often mentioned how good our water tasted or asked about our filtration system after drinking tap water. This external validation confirmed that the improvements weren't just our imagination or wishful thinking.
Operating Costs and Long-Term Ownership
Understanding true ownership costs required tracking expenses carefully over our eight months of operation.
Initial system cost totaled $1,847 including the filtration unit, professional installation, and minor plumbing modifications. While not inexpensive, this represented a middle-ground investment compared to alternatives I'd researched. Basic carbon systems cost $400-800 but lacked catalytic and bone char capabilities. Comprehensive whole-house systems with similar features ranged from $2,200-3,500.
Ongoing operational costs proved lower than anticipated. The system regenerates automatically every 7-10 days depending on water usage, consuming approximately 35 gallons per regeneration cycle. At our municipal water rates ($4.50 per 1,000 gallons), regeneration costs roughly $0.16 per cycle, or about $6-8 annually.
Electrical consumption appears minimal. The control valve draws power only during regeneration cycles and for the digital display. I haven't noticed any measurable increase in our electric bill since installation.
Media replacement represents the primary ongoing expense. Based on our usage patterns and water conditions, I expect to replace the carbon media every 12-18 months. Current replacement costs approximately $380 for catalytic carbon and $120 for bone char media, totaling roughly $500 every 15 months or $400 annually.
Comparing these costs to alternatives puts the system's value in perspective. Previously, we'd been purchasing bottled water for drinking ($40-50 monthly) and replacing shower filters every 2-3 months ($15 each). Those expenses alone totaled $540-660 annually without solving our core problem.
The system also generates savings I hadn't anticipated. Reduced soap and shampoo usage due to better lathering in softened water. Less frequent appliance maintenance since mineral buildup decreased. Extended clothing life due to gentler wash water. While difficult to quantify precisely, these savings partially offset the media replacement costs.
Calculating return on investment, the system pays for itself in 3-4 years compared to our previous bottled water expenses and failed filtration attempts. Beyond financial payback, the health and comfort improvements justify the investment regardless of pure cost analysis.
Honest Assessment: Limitations and Considerations
After eight months of ownership, I can identify several limitations and considerations that potential buyers should understand before investing in this system.
Space requirements may challenge some installations. The 48-inch height and 10-inch diameter demand adequate clearance, particularly for media replacement access. Basement installations work well, but utility closets or cramped spaces could prove problematic. Plan installation location carefully and measure twice.
Initial installation complexity exceeds DIY comfort levels for many homeowners. While mechanically straightforward, the plumbing modifications, electrical connections, and programming require specific knowledge. Professional installation adds $300-500 to project costs but ensures proper setup and warranty compliance.
Media replacement costs represent ongoing expenses that some might find burdensome. $500 every 12-18 months isn't trivial, particularly when combined with periodic service calls if you're not comfortable with DIY maintenance. Budget for these expenses when calculating total ownership costs.
The system doesn't address hardness issues. If you have hard water problems – soap scum, mineral buildup, appliance scaling – this filtration system won't help. You'll need separate water softening equipment, adding complexity and expense to achieve comprehensive water treatment.
Fluoride removal, while effective, isn't complete. The 70-75% reduction I measured brings levels down significantly but doesn't eliminate fluoride entirely. Families seeking complete fluoride removal need reverse osmosis systems or specialized point-of-use filters for drinking water.
Water waste during regeneration cycles might concern environmentally conscious users. Each regeneration consumes 35 gallons, which seems wasteful during drought conditions or in areas with water restrictions. However, this compares favorably to reverse osmosis systems that waste 3-4 gallons for every gallon produced.
Maintenance requirements demand attention and consistency. Neglecting regeneration schedules or postponing media replacement compromises performance and potentially damages the system. This isn't a set-and-forget solution – it requires ongoing attention and periodic investment.
For our specific situation – municipal water with chlorine/chloramine issues causing health reactions – this system proved ideal. However, families with different water problems (bacteria, heavy metals, extreme hardness) need different solutions. Understand your specific water issues before selecting any treatment approach.
Final Verdict: Worth Every Penny for the Right Situation
Eight months after installation, I'm completely satisfied with our decision to invest in the SoftPro Whole House Upflow Catalytic Bone Char Carbon Water Filter. The system solved our daughter's health issues completely while delivering numerous unexpected quality-of-life improvements throughout our household.
The transformation was immediate and sustained. My daughter's shower-induced eye irritation and sneezing disappeared within days and hasn't returned. This alone justified our investment, but the comprehensive water quality improvements exceeded our expectations in nearly every category.
Performance has remained consistent through varying seasonal water conditions. Chlorine removal stays at zero detectable levels, taste and odor improvements continue, and flow characteristics remain unchanged. The system delivers on its promises reliably and predictably.
Build quality inspires confidence for long-term ownership. The Fleck control valve operates smoothly, the fiberglass tank shows no signs of wear, and all connections remain tight and leak-free. Based on construction quality and manufacturer reputation, I expect many years of reliable service with proper maintenance.
Operating costs proved manageable and predictable. While media replacement represents a real ongoing expense, the annual costs compare favorably to alternatives we'd tried previously. The value equation works positively when considering health benefits, convenience, and comprehensive household coverage.
This system excels for households on municipal water dealing with chlorine, chloramine, or moderate fluoride issues. If your family experiences sensitivity to treated water, struggles with taste and odor problems, or wants comprehensive whole-house filtration without the complexity of multiple systems, this represents an excellent solution.
I wouldn't hesitate to purchase this system again or recommend it to friends facing similar water quality challenges. The combination of proven technology, reliable performance, and reasonable ownership costs makes it a sound investment for the right situation.
Would I make the same choice again?
Absolutely. The peace of mind knowing my daughter can shower comfortably, combined with the daily quality improvements throughout our home, makes this one of our best household investments.