Whole House Catalytic Bone Char Carbon Filter Review_25

Hi, I'm Michael M. I live in St. Louis. 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 I first installed this whole house catalytic bone char carbon filter, I wasn't prepared for the learning curve that came with it. After months of dealing with chlorine-tasting tap water and concerns about fluoride in my family's drinking supply, I finally decided to invest in a comprehensive filtration system. What followed was both frustrating and ultimately rewarding—a journey that taught me as much about water treatment as it did about the importance of proper installation procedures.
The filter arrived after what felt like an eternity of research, comparing different technologies and reading endless specifications. I had high hopes, but I also had realistic expectations about the installation process. What I didn't expect was how a simple shipping mishap would turn into a valuable lesson about backwashing and media management.
The Water Quality Problems I Was Desperate to Solve
Living in St. Louis, our municipal water comes with its own set of challenges. The chlorine smell hit you the moment you walked into the bathroom after someone took a shower. My wife constantly complained about the taste of our tap water, and I found myself buying bottled water for coffee just to avoid that chemical aftertaste that seemed to linger no matter what we did.
But the real wake-up call came when I started researching fluoride levels in our water supply.
Our local water treatment facility adds fluoride as a public health measure, but as a father of two young children, I wanted more control over what my family was consuming. The fluoride levels weren't dangerous by any means, but I preferred having the choice to supplement separately rather than having it forced through our entire water supply.
Beyond the taste and fluoride concerns, I noticed our shower experience had become less enjoyable over the years. My skin felt dry and itchy after showering, and my wife's hair seemed to lack the shine it once had. We tried different soaps and shampoos, but the problem persisted. It wasn't until I tested our water that I realized we were dealing with chloramine in addition to standard chlorine—a combination that regular carbon filters couldn't handle effectively.
I measured our incoming water and found chlorine levels consistently around 3-4 ppm, with total dissolved solids fluctuating between 180-220 ppm depending on the season. These numbers weren't alarming, but they explained the taste issues and why standard pitcher filters weren't making a noticeable difference.
Why I Chose Catalytic Carbon Over Standard Filtration
My research phase lasted nearly three months. I'm the type of person who reads everything—manufacturer specs, independent testing reports, user forums, and even some pretty dry scientific papers about different carbon activation processes. What I discovered was that not all carbon filters are created equal, especially when dealing with chloramines.
Standard granular activated carbon works well for chlorine removal, but chloramines require a different approach. Catalytic carbon, I learned, has enhanced surface properties that break the chloramine bond more effectively. The bone char component added another layer of filtration that particularly appealed to me because of its reputation for fluoride reduction.
The upflow design was another key factor in my decision.
Traditional downflow systems can create channeling, where water follows the path of least resistance and doesn't contact all the media evenly. Upflow systems force water through the entire media bed more uniformly, theoretically providing better contact time and more thorough filtration.
I compared this system against several alternatives: reverse osmosis for the whole house (too expensive and wasteful), salt-based softeners combined with carbon filters (our water wasn't hard enough to justify), and standard carbon block systems (couldn't handle chloramines effectively). The catalytic bone char combination offered the most comprehensive solution for our specific water chemistry.
The capacity specifications also made sense for our household. With four family members and typical suburban water usage patterns, the system's flow rate of 15 GPM and media capacity would handle our peak demand without pressure drops while providing adequate contact time for effective filtration.
Unboxing and Initial Setup Challenges
The system arrived on a Tuesday morning, carefully strapped to a pallet. The packaging was professional-grade—clearly designed for a product that weighs considerably more than your typical household appliance. The main tank stood about 54 inches tall and 13 inches in diameter, larger than I had anticipated even after reading the specifications multiple times.
Opening the shipment revealed my first concern: the tank had been transported on its side. There was a small note in the documentation about potential media displacement during shipping, but I honestly missed it during my initial excitement to get everything unpacked. This oversight would come back to haunt me, but it also provided one of the most valuable learning experiences of the entire installation process.
The build quality immediately impressed me. The fiberglass tank felt solid and substantial, with a smooth gelcoat finish that looked like it would hold up well in a basement environment. The control head was heavier than expected—a good sign that it contained quality components rather than cheap plastic parts.
All the necessary fittings were included: bypass valves, unions, mounting hardware, and even a small bottle of thread sealant. The instruction manual was comprehensive, though I would later discover some critical information buried in the middle sections that really should have been highlighted more prominently.
Installation Experience and Early Frustrations
I decided to tackle the installation myself, partly to save money and partly because I enjoy hands-on projects. The pre-installation requirements were straightforward: adequate clearance for the tank, access to the main water line, a drain for backwash cycles, and a standard 110V electrical connection for the control head.
The actual plumbing work took most of a Saturday. Installing the bypass valves and cutting into the main line required careful measurement and patience, but nothing beyond typical DIY capabilities. The system needed to be installed after the pressure tank but before any other treatment equipment or the hot water heater—a configuration that made sense once I understood the reasoning.
The real problems started after I completed the installation and ran the first startup cycle.
Within hours, I noticed our kitchen sink was draining slowly. By the next morning, it was completely clogged. Initially, I didn't connect this to the new filtration system—until I discovered that the dishwasher drain was also backing up. Something was definitely wrong.
After some panicked troubleshooting, I realized that fine media particles were making their way through the system and into our plumbing. The tank had been shipped on its side, allowing the different media types to mix and creating space for smaller particles to escape the tank during initial operation. This was exactly what that small note in the manual had warned about, but I had completely missed its significance.
The solution involved a thorough backwash procedure to reclassify the media—essentially forcing water backward through the system at high flow rates to separate and properly layer the different carbon types. This process took nearly 20 gallons of water and about 45 minutes of cycling, but it completely resolved the problem.
Performance Results That Exceeded My Expectations
Once I completed the proper media backwashing procedure, the system began performing exactly as advertised. The difference in water taste was immediately noticeable—that chlorine smell and aftertaste disappeared completely within 24 hours of operation.
I tested the water at multiple points to track the system's effectiveness. Pre-filtration chlorine levels measured 3.2 ppm on average, while post-filtration readings consistently showed 0.1 ppm or less. The conductivity drop of approximately 80 μS/cm that I measured indicated the system was removing dissolved solids beyond just chlorine and chloramines.
The real surprise came with fluoride reduction.
While I expected some fluoride removal based on the bone char media specifications, I wasn't prepared for the dramatic reduction I measured. Using a fluoride-specific test kit, incoming levels of 0.8-1.0 ppm dropped to 0.2 ppm consistently. This exceeded my expectations and gave me the control over fluoride exposure I was seeking.
The impact on our daily water experience was remarkable. Coffee tasted noticeably better—cleaner and more vibrant without that underlying chemical note. Ice cubes were crystal clear instead of slightly cloudy. Even cooking seemed improved; pasta water didn't have that faint chlorine smell during boiling.
But the most significant change was in our shower experience. Within a week, both my wife and I noticed our skin felt less dry and irritated. Her hair regained some of its natural shine and felt softer. These weren't dramatic transformations, but they were consistent and noticeable improvements that validated our decision to invest in whole-house treatment.
Flow rate performance met specifications perfectly. Even during peak usage times—simultaneous shower and dishwasher operation—I measured adequate pressure throughout the house. The 15 GPM rating proved conservative; we never experienced Fluoride Filtration pressure drops or flow restrictions during normal usage patterns.
Ongoing Maintenance and Real Operating Costs
Six months into ownership, I've developed a good understanding of the system's maintenance requirements and operating costs. The beauty of catalytic carbon systems is their relatively low maintenance needs compared to other treatment technologies.
The backwash cycles occur automatically based on time intervals rather than water volume, which I initially questioned but now understand. The control head is programmed for weekly backwashing, consuming approximately 150 gallons per cycle. This might seem like a lot, but it represents less than 1% of our monthly water usage and ensures optimal media performance.
The media replacement schedule is where the economics really shine.
Based on our water chemistry and usage patterns, I expect the catalytic carbon to last 3-4 years before requiring replacement. The bone char component may need replacement slightly sooner, around 2-3 years, particularly if fluoride levels in our municipal supply increase.
Media replacement costs are reasonable—approximately $300-400 for a complete refresh, including both catalytic carbon and bone char components. When amortized over the media life, this equals roughly $10-12 per month for consumables. Compare this to the bottled water we were purchasing for drinking and cooking, and the system pays for itself within the first year.
Electricity consumption is minimal. The control head draws power only during backwash cycles and for the digital display. My calculations suggest less than $20 annually in electrical costs—negligible compared to other household appliances.
The weekly backwash cycles are completely automatic, requiring no intervention from me. I do check the system monthly, inspecting connections and monitoring the control head display for any error codes, but this takes less than five minutes and has become part of my routine basement maintenance checks.
Unexpected Benefits and Minor Drawbacks
Living with this system for several months has revealed benefits I didn't anticipate when making the purchase decision. Our soap consumption has decreased noticeably—both for dishwashing and laundry. Without chlorine interfering with soap chemistry, we achieve better cleaning results with less detergent.
The system has also eliminated the need for any point-of-use filters. We removed the under-sink filter in the kitchen and stopped buying replacement cartridges for our refrigerator water dispenser. These small savings add up over time and simplify our household maintenance routines.
However, the system isn't without its minor drawbacks.
The weekly backwash cycles occur at 2 AM by default, which is usually fine, but the water flow noise is audible in our basement bedroom. I've learned to schedule these cycles for times when we're typically awake, but the programming interface could be more intuitive.
The initial media displacement issue, while ultimately educational, was stressful and could have been avoided with clearer documentation. The warning about shipping orientation needs to be more prominent, and the backwash procedure should be mandatory rather than suggested.
Space requirements are significant. The 54-inch tank height requires adequate clearance for media replacement, and the 13-inch diameter footprint is larger than some alternative systems. This wasn't a problem for our basement installation, but it could be limiting in smaller utility rooms.
I also discovered that the bone char component can slightly increase pH levels. Our water pH rose from 7.2 to 7.6, which isn't problematic but was unexpected. This could be beneficial for households with slightly acidic water but might require monitoring in areas with already high pH levels.
Final Assessment and Buying Recommendations
After six months of ownership, I'm genuinely satisfied with this investment. The system delivers on its primary promises: effective chlorine and chloramine removal, significant fluoride reduction, and improved overall water quality throughout our home.
The installation challenges I experienced were largely self-inflicted due to inadequate attention to shipping-related instructions. Once properly commissioned, the system has operated reliably with minimal intervention required. The automatic operation and reasonable maintenance requirements make it suitable for homeowners who want comprehensive water treatment without constant attention.
This system is ideal for households dealing with municipal water supplies that contain chloramines, fluoride, or both.
The catalytic carbon technology handles chloramines more effectively than standard carbon filters, while the bone char component addresses fluoride concerns that many families share. The upflow design and automatic backwashing ensure consistent performance without the channeling issues common in simpler systems.
However, this isn't the right choice for every situation. Households on well water with iron, hydrogen sulfide, or hardness issues need different treatment approaches. The system also represents a significant upfront investment—justified by long-term media life and comprehensive treatment capabilities, but still substantial.
For families like mine, concerned about chemical taste, fluoride exposure, and overall water quality, this system provides excellent value. The combination of effective treatment, reasonable operating costs, and reliable performance makes it a worthwhile investment in our home's water infrastructure.
Would I make the same choice again? Absolutely. Despite the initial installation hiccups, the daily quality-of-life improvements and peace of mind about our family's water consumption make this one of the better home improvement investments I've made. The water tastes amazing, our showers are more enjoyable, and I have confidence in what we're drinking every day.


