Purifier vs filter at a glance
- Filter removes
- Bacteria, protozoa
- Purifier adds
- Viruses
- Backcountry US
- Filter is standard
- Sewage risk areas
- Purifier
The difference is viruses
The distinction is about viruses and nothing else. Filters use pore size, and viruses at roughly 0.02 microns are an order of magnitude smaller than the 0.1 to 0.2 micron pores in a backpacking filter. Straining them out isn't practical at usable flow rates, so purifiers reach for something else: chlorine dioxide, iodine, UV light, or an electro-adsorptive medium that catches particles smaller than its physical pores.
Where you need a purifier
Where you are decides which you need. Waterborne viruses come primarily from human sewage, so in remote North American backcountry, where the realistic hazards are giardia and cryptosporidium from wildlife, a filter is the appropriate tool and the one most guidance recommends. Travel where water may be contaminated with human waste and viruses become a genuine risk.
The middle path most people take
There's a practical middle path a lot of people use: carry the filter and add chlorine dioxide tablets as a lightweight backup. That covers the virus gap for a few dollars and a few grams, gives you a fallback if the filter clogs or freezes, and weighs less than carrying a purifier you rarely need. Chemical treatment does need contact time, and against cryptosporidium chlorine dioxide needs several hours.
What this means when you're choosing
- Which one your destination actually needs, which is a question about sewage
- Chlorine dioxide tablets as a light backup, which many people carry
- Whether a purifier's flow rate is one you will tolerate
The common mistake
Buying a purifier for North American backcountry
Waterborne viruses come from human sewage, and in remote wilderness the risk is low enough that essentially nobody carries one. You pay in money, weight and flow rate for a capability you will not use. Save it for international travel.
Common questions
Do I need a purifier for hiking in the US?
For remote backcountry water, a filter covers the realistic risks, which are protozoa and bacteria from wildlife. Water downstream of towns, farms or heavy human use is a different question and worth treating more thoroughly.
Are chemical tablets as good as a filter?
They handle viruses, which filters don't, and they're slow against cryptosporidium, needing up to four hours with chlorine dioxide. They also don't remove sediment or improve taste. Carried together, tablets and a filter cover each other's gaps well.
Where this is defined
- Water disinfection for travelers, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Ground water and drinking water, US Environmental Protection Agency