Purewell 2.25G Review: Lab Analysis & Hands-On Testing

Full Analysis of the Purewell 2.25G with K-Series Black Carbon + Optional Fluoride Removal Filters

Filtration: 2.46/5.00 (Carbon Filters) & 3.15/5.00 (Carbon + Fluoride Filters)

The Purewell 2.25G + K-Series Black Carbon filters scored 2.46/5.00 for filtration. How? Most importantly, it achieved mediocre results in our 2026 lab testing though the filtered water tasted perfectly clean with no odor. Plus, this setup has minimal third-party testing for contaminant reduction (including germs) which was not performed over the full filter life. On top of that, the carbon filter cartridge shown in the testing reports differs from the current cartridge on the official website. Finally, it also lacks any NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants.

The Purewell 2.25G + K-Series Black Carbon filters + optional fluoride removal filters scored 3.15/5.00 for filtration. Using this filter combination, it achieved solid results in our lab testing, and the filtered water tasted and smelled perfectly clean. Still, it lacks NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants and shares the same scant third-party test data with the carbon-only configuration. The only difference is additional test data for fluoride reduction.

1. Lab Results: 3.46/5.00 (Carbon Filters) & 4.15/5.00 (Carbon + Fluoride Filters)

In our 2026 lab test comparing an unfiltered and a filtered tap water sample, the Purewell’s carbon filters could remove 4 undesirable impurities and contaminants to below the minimum detection level (so essentially to 100%): chlorine, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and iron.

The following substances remained in our water (note: in our view, most concentration increases are generally due to leaching, although natural fluctuations cannot be ruled out):

• Chloroform was reduced by 91%.
• Copper was reduced by 87%.
• Manganese increased by 18%. At 0.00657 ppm, it was 3.04x lower than the California OEHHA notification level of 0.02 ppm, the strictest manganese benchmark we could find. That said, manganese is an essential dietary element for humans and the notification level is very conservative because it’s based primarily on limited animal data and the application of large safety/uncertainty factors to protect bottle-fed infants from neurotoxicological effects.
• Barium decreased by 32%.
• Boron decreased by 94%.
• Strontium increased by 7%. At 0.137 ppm, it was 10.95x lower than the strictest strontium health guideline we could find (1.5 ppm, EWG). The associated effect above that guideline is harm to bones.
• Nitrate was reduced by 96%.
• Fluoride decreased by 19%.

Aside from contaminant reduction, we found the following substances in our filtered water that were not present in the unfiltered water:

• Zinc – Detected at 0.0184 ppm. That said, zinc is merely an aesthetic impurity which only becomes relevant (e.g., impacting water taste) at a higher level than detected in our sample, which was 271.74x lower than the strictest zinc guideline we could find (5.0 ppm, EPA secondary standards). One possible explanation is the use of KDF media (a copper-zinc mix), which might have released trace zinc.
• Nickel – At 0.00176 ppm, it was 6.82x lower than the strictest nickel health guideline we could find (California OEHHA, 0.012 ppm), established to prevent developmental toxicity (increased neonatal deaths). That said, the guideline applies to soluble nickel compounds, and we don’t know the form in our water sample.
• Silver – At 0.00194 ppm, it was 51.55x lower than the strictest silver guideline we could find (0.1 ppm, EPA secondary standards). Associated effects above that guideline are skin discoloration and graying of the whites of the eyes. One possible explanation is the use of silver-impregnated media, which might have released trace amounts of silver.

Lab Results Chart: Carbon Filters

In an earlier 2024 lab test, the Purewell system with both carbon and fluoride filters installed could remove 9 undesirable impurities and contaminants to below the minimum detection level (so essentially to 100%): chlorine, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, dibromochloromethane, chloroform, copper, boron, nitrate and uranium.

The following substances remained in our water:

• Barium was reduced by 75%.
• Lithium wasn’t reduced at all. That said, it was already at the lowest detectable level (0.01 ppm) in the unfiltered water sample, and because the lab reported lithium only in 0.01 ppm increments, reduction could only be calculated as either 0% or 100%.
• Strontium was reduced by 61%.
• Fluoride increased by 47%. That said, we’re confident the Purewell doesn’t leach fluoride, as we don’t know of any fluoride-containing filter media. Purewell’s third-party test data claims 85.90% (calculated average) fluoride reduction with both the carbon and fluoride filters installed.

Side note: We assume the improved overall contaminant reduction is due to the fluoride filters slowing down the filtration rate (see below), thereby increasing contact time between the water and the filter media, which in turn likely enhanced the performance of the carbon filters. There is also an additional layer of activated carbon in the fluoride filters, which may have further boosted contaminant removal.

Aside from contaminant reduction, we found the following substances in our filtered water that were not present in the unfiltered water:

• Manganese – At 0.01 ppm, it was 2x lower than the California OEHHA notification level mentioned previously.
• Aluminum – At 0.19 ppm, it was 3.16x lower than the strictest aluminum health guideline we could find (California OEHHA, 0.6 ppm), established to prevent neuro- and immunotoxic effects. That said, one possible explanation for the added aluminum is the use of activated alumina (AA) media in the optional fluoride filters, which may have released aluminum oxide that would show up as (total) aluminum in the lab reports. The OEHHA guideline, however, pertains to elemental aluminum; we could not find a health guideline specifically for aluminum oxide, so it is unclear to what extent this benchmark applies here. Still, elemental aluminum leaching from AA is possible depending on water conditions and the media itself.

Lab Results Chart: Carbon + Fluoride Filters

Non-Potable Water

We have not yet tested the Purewell system with a non-potable water source. This evaluation is planned, and the page will be updated as soon as testing is completed and results are available.

2. NSF/ANSI Certifications and Other Test Data

The Purewell has no NSF/ANSI certifications for contaminant reduction.

In addition, it has very limited third-party testing which was not performed to NSF/ANSI standards or over the full filter lifespan. Plus, the Black Carbon filter cartridge shown in the testing reports differs from the cartridge shown on the Purewell website, so it is unclear whether these test data apply to the current system.

Listed reduction rates include:

• Residual chlorine (99.60%)
• Mercury (93.40%)
• Lead (>99.80%)
• Fluoride (85.90% – calculated average; with optional fluoride filters over 100 liters)

Reduction rates are per Purewell’s third-party data sheets.

Non-Potable Water

The Purewell does not carry NSF/ANSI certifications for microbiological reduction (e.g., bacteria, cysts, or viruses). It has third-party test data showing 99.99% E. coli reduction, though this was only tested to 5 liters and not to any NSF/ANSI standard or NSF protocol.

Confusingly, there are additional, inconsistent microbial contaminant reduction claims across the Purewell website. While only E. coli test data is provided, other bacteria are listed as well, sometimes claiming 99.999% and other times 99.9999% reduction. Parasites are also listed as 99.9% in some places and 99.99% in others. This variable reporting does not inspire confidence in the system’s microbial reduction performance.

3. Filtration Process

The Black Carbon filters are made from a silver-infused coconut shell activated carbon block with a 0.01-micron hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane core.

Activated carbon removes things like bad tastes and odors, chlorine/chloramine, disinfection byproducts and other organics, as well as certain metals. In addition, the block structure provides fine mechanical filtration due to its smaller pore size compared to granular carbon. Silver is often added to support the hygiene of the filter by inhibiting microbial growth. The submicron ultrafiltration membrane core should offer an even finer level of mechanical filtration following the carbon layer.

The fluoride filters feature “food-grade fluoride reducer and granular activated carbon” sandwiched between alternating layers of PP cotton. PP cotton provides additional mechanical filtration, and the granular activated carbon has the same adsorbent function described above (however, it does not offer the same degree of mechanical filtration as the block form). Purewell does not explicitly state the composition of their fluoride filter media. However, we assume it contains activated alumina.

4. Taste and Odor Test

For both configurations, in our testing the filtered water was odorless and had a perfectly clean taste.

Usability: 4.29/5.00 (Carbon Filters) & 4.23/5.00 (Carbon + Fluoride Filters)

The Purewell system without the fluoride filters installed achieved a usability score of 4.29/5.00, based on its performance in the following categories:

1. Initial system assembly including filter priming (1.00/1.00)
2. Everyday use (3.09/3.50)
3. Filter replacements (0.20/0.50)

The Purewell system with the fluoride filters installed achieved a usability score of 4.23/5.00, based on its performance in the following categories:

1. Initial system assembly including filter priming (1.00/1.00)
2. Everyday use (3.03/3.50)
3. Filter replacements (0.20/0.50)

1. Initial Setup & Filter Priming: 1.00/1.00

Assembling the Purewell system is easy, even with the addition of the optional fluoride filters. The user manual provides clear, illustrated instructions for each step. Plus, there is a helpful tutorial video on YouTube.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the setup procedure:

1. Wash your hands, then wash the lid, upper chamber, lower chamber, and spigot with warm soapy water and rinse.
2. Place the gasket and washer for the lid knob over the provided screw. Attach the knob to the lid by inserting this screw through the hole in the lid and screwing on the knob with the provided screwdriver. (Note: lid may come preassembled).
3. Place a metal gasket on the spigot thread, followed by a beveled washer. Insert the thread into the lower chamber hole.
4. Attach the remaining beveled washer followed by the other metal gasket over the exposed thread within the lower chamber. Secure with the hex nut using the provided wrench.
5. Unscrew the wing nut from carbon filter; remove the two washers on the filter stem.
6. Invert the wing nut and screw back onto the stem of the carbon filter, leaving just enough space to set a filter washer on top. Place this washer on the filter stem, and hold the assembly up to the faucet, pressing tightly.
7. Turn on the tap and allow water to prime the filter for 60 seconds or until the water runs clear. Repeat priming process for the other filter.
8. Alternatively: use the included priming tool to flush the carbon filters (not included at the time we tested the system). Remove the wing nut and washers from filter stem, then cover stem with the bottom of the priming tool. Using your thumb, press down on the top of the priming tool to attach it to your faucet. Holding it firmly onto the faucet, slowly turn on water and rinse the filter for 60 seconds. Repeat for the other filter.
9. Place one filter washer on the filter stem and insert it into one of the holes in the upper chamber.
10. Slide on second washer to the exposed portion of the filter stem. Securely screw on the wing nut snugly against the washer.
11. Repeat the installation steps for the other carbon filter.
12. If using the optional fluoride filters, remove the plastic wrap and red caps from both ends of each filter.
13. Place the black priming washer on inlet of fluoride filter and hold this assembly tightly against the faucet. Turn on the cold water tap and prime for 120 seconds or until water runs clear.
14. Unscrew the wing nut from the carbon filter stem, leaving the filter washer in place. Screw on the fluoride removal filter securely – do not over-tighten.
15. Repeat priming + installation steps for the other fluoride filter.
16. Place the bottom chamber on the anti-slip mat.
17. Place the upper chamber onto the lower chamber, then place both on the tank stand. Make sure spigot is turned to the closed position.
18. Fill the upper chamber with water, then cover with the lid.
19. Allow the system to fully process the water in the upper chamber. Discard the first 2-3 batches of filtered water.
20. Now your system is ready to use.

2. Day-to-Day Use: 3.09/3.50 (Carbon Filters) & 3.03/3.50 (Carbon + Fluoride Filters)

2.1 Speed & Water Capacity: 0.99/1.20 (Carbon Filters) & 0.93/1.20 (Carbon + Fluoride Filters)

The Purewell 2.25G system + two carbon filters is generally suited for daily use but on-demand filtering, which we define as 1 cup in <1 minute, takes just a little more patience. The system filtered and dispensed 1 cup in ~1:34 min and 4 cups in ~5:50 min in our filtration speed tests.

However, as the spigot sits above the bottom of the lower chamber, the Purewell must process and collect ~37 oz of water before any can be dispensed, which took ~6:20 min. As a result, starting from an empty system, the total time to filter and dispense 1 cup was ~7:54 min, while dispensing 4 cups took ~12:10 min.

Requiring only ~1:15 hr to fully filter and dispense the entire feed tank, the Purewell + carbon filters can produce large volumes relatively quickly for a gravity system. It’s definitely fast enough to handle 8-10 cup/hour thirst bursts for average US households, which we assume consist of 2.55-3.15 people. However, as the Purewell housing can only accommodate two parallel flow paths, there is no option to add additional filter elements to boost filtration speed.

Predictably, the addition of the fluoride post-filters to the carbon cartridges slows things down slightly, though this configuration is still suited for daily use. On-demand filtering takes a little more patience, producing 1 cup of water in ~2:36 min and 4 cups in ~11:18 min in our speed tests. However, it required ~14:53 min to collect the ~37 oz needed to reach dispensing level, so the time to filter and dispense 1 cup is ~17:29 min and 4 cups is ~26:11 min if starting from an empty system.

That said, at ~1:53 hr to fully filter and dispense the entire feed tank, the Purewell system with carbon + fluoride filters is still plenty fast to handle typical thirst bursts.

Dispensing filtered water from a full lower reservoir is also extremely fast – for both setups, we measured about 2.5 seconds for 1 cup.

The Purewell has a 1.65-gal (~26.4-cup) feed tank* when used with two carbon cartridges – fluoride filters don’t make a difference here. However, as these fluoride cartridges take up some space in the lower chamber, the clean tank capacity decreases from 2.15-gal (~34.4-cup) to 1.89-gal (~30.2-cup) with two elements installed.

Either way, you can easily fill a 40-oz bottle or 2-quart pitcher from a single refill. Assuming 25.5-31.5 cups of daily water consumption for the average US households, we estimate 2 daily refills for both configurations when filling the upper chamber all the way to the top* – consistent with the other gravity water filters we tested.

However, actual refilling frequency will likely vary considerably depending on each household’s needs and preferences. Given the relatively slow filtration speed inherent to gravity systems, most users likely would not want to wait until the feed tank is empty and the clean water fully depleted before refilling. Realistically, it is more practical to top off the feed tank at strategic times, such as before heading out to work or before bed, so the longer wait time is less disruptive. However, this requires some ongoing judgment from the user to ensure that the added feed water volume does not cause the clean tank to overflow.

2.2 Dispensing: 1.00/1.00

Using a full clean tank, dispensing water is extremely fast and without splashing, unless the spout is fully opened very quickly. The handle twists smoothly, and there is no dripping after the pour.

Due to the spout height, the system must be placed at the counter edge to dispense, unless you use the included tank stand – this gives you another 5.8″ of clearance to fit a glass underneath. That said, you still won’t be able to fit a standard 40-oz bottle or 2-quart pitcher under the spout, even with the added height from the stand.

One minor grievance: dispensing the last 37 oz of water requires additional steps. The spigot sits slightly above the base of the clean tank, which means the last ~4.6 cups of water cannot be poured unless you are tilting the tank forward or manually ladle out the remaining water. However, this is a common limitation and applies to almost all gravity filters we tested.

2.3 Refilling & Size: 0.80/1.00

Refilling the Purewell is straightforward. Simply use a pitcher or other container to fill the upper chamber with water. There are no max fill lines, however, and the user manual does not specify a fill amount, only to “Fill the upper chamber as much as possible at the beginning of the filtration process.”

The included lid fits loosely but still keeps your feed water well covered. Plus, the lower tank has a window that enables water level monitoring (though you need a flashlight or must look closely to see the level clearly). In addition, an optional water level spigot can be purchased separately from Purewell for even easier monitoring of your clean water reserves.

Measuring 8.75″x19.6″x10.75″ (WxHxD) including the lid’s knob and spigot, the Purewell doesn’t fit under most kitchen cabinets (18” clearance). Additionally, using the tank stand further increases the height.

Excluding the stand, it weighs 7.8 lbs with two wet carbon filters installed – increasing to 9.4 lbs with the addition of two saturated fluoride filters. In both cases, weight is about average for the gravity systems we tested when compared to analogous configurations. Its footprint is also about average, occupying ~60.13 in² (~0.42 ft²).

2.4 Other: 0.30/0.30

The Purewell system includes a rubber ring on the bottom tank, preventing scratching or sliding on your counter tops. Alternatively, the included tank stand comes with rubber-gripped feet which also prevent unwanted movement.

2.5 Outdoor Use

With 304 stainless steel tanks and an all-metal spigot, the Purewell is durable enough for outdoor use.

Its stowed size of 8.75″x11.9″x8.75″, (WxHxD; knob and spigot removed) and 7.8-lb or 9.4-lb weight (with two wet carbon filters, +/- two wet fluoride filters, and excluding the stand) are comparable to competing systems, making it a reasonably portable option as well.

3. Filter Replacements: 0.20/0.50

Filter replacements are easy. The carbon cartridges are readily accessible from inside the upper chamber, and the fluoride filters simply screw onto their exposed threads, which protrude from the bottom exterior surface of the feed tank. However, there is no filter change indicator to alert you when it is time to change them.

Rated filter life is 3,000 gal or 12 months per carbon filter element; 2 cartridges therefore would have a combined water filtering capacity of 6,000 gal.

There’s conflicting information for the fluoride filters, with Purewell reporting a rated life of 500 vs. 1,000 gal per element or 3 vs. 6 months. For the pair, this would yield a combined water filtering capacity of 1,000 or 2,000 gal.

Assuming 500 gallons of yearly water consumption for the average household, we predict the frequency of your filter changes will be dictated by filter age rather than water consumption based on the above ranges. Therefore, expect to replace the carbon filters 1x annually and the fluoride elements 2-4x annually.

Costs: 5.00/5.00 (Carbon Filters) & 4.64/5.00 (Carbon + Fluoride Filters)

Based on value for money, the Purewell 2.25G system incl. optional water level spigot plus two carbon filters achieved a cost score of 5.00 out of 5.00, indicating it is priced below average for what it offers compared to competing systems (a score of 4.00 represents average value). Notably, both its upfront price and annual filter replacement costs are well below average compared to the other gravity filter systems we tested.

Similarly, the Purewell 2.25G system incl. optional water level spigot plus two carbon and two fluoride removal filters achieved a cost score of 4.64 out of 5.00, again denoting it is priced below average for what it offers compared to competing systems. In fact, both its upfront price and long-term cost are also well below average compared to the other tested gravity filter systems.

1. Upfront Price

As of March 6, 2026, the Purewell 2.25G system including two carbon filters is priced at $158.99. Adding the optional water level spigot ($29.99) brings the upfront total to $188.98, which is well below the $384.81 average across all the tested gravity filter systems.

The same system with the addition of two fluoride filters is priced at $229. Adding the optional water level spigot ($29.99) brings the upfront total to $258.99, which is still well below average for the gravity filter systems we tested.

2. Long-Term Expenses for Filter Replacements

Based on 500 gallons consumption and a 6000-gal or 12-month filter life for two carbon cartridges, we estimate $60 in annual filter replacement costs, which is well below the $234.50 average across all the tested gravity filter systems.

Adding the two fluoride filters, we estimate another $99 in ongoing filter media expenses assuming a 6-month filter life. In combination with the carbon filters, this brings the total to $159 for annual filter replacement costs, which is still well below the $234.50 average across all the tested gravity filter systems.

3. Product Warranty

The Purewell has a 1-year warranty.

4. Other Cost Factors

The optional water level spigot uses a plastic pull-down handle.

Additional

1. Construction

The system feels sturdy and well built, with 304 stainless steel upper + lower chambers and an all-metal spigot. It has a moderately reflective finish that easily smudges.

2. Size Options

The unit comes in 5 size options: 1.0, 1.5, 2.25, 2.9, or 3.5-gal.

3. Cleanable Filters

You can remove and clean the carbon filters using a sponge while running under cold water. This helps to restore the flow rate, which may slow over time due to mineral buildup.

4. Questionable Website

The official product listing on the Purewell website has many inconsistencies, grammatical errors, cryptic descriptions, and confusing graphics, which generally do not convey a sense of trustworthiness. There are images showing multiple carbon filter options, for instance, ostensibly with different rated lifespans. However, the website does not give you the choice to select from these different filter elements when ordering the system or the replacement filters, nor is it made clear which come included with the unit.

5. Frequent Customer Complaints

We read about issues with clogged filters, leaking, and a confusing setup process.

We did not experience these issues firsthand.

Carbon Filters Bottom Line: Budget-Friendly but Weak Filtration Performance (3.33/5.00)

Filtration weighted at 60%, and usability and cost at 20% each, the Purewell 2.25G system with K-Series Black Carbon filters scored a final rating of 3.33 out of 5.00.

The combo without the optional fluoride filters achieved mediocre results in our lab testing, only removing 4 impurities but still producing clean-tasting water with no odor. However, it has no NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants, and its scant third-party testing was not performed to NSF/ANSI standards or to full filter life. The only microbial reduction test data is for E. coli, and that was limited to 5 liters – not very realistic for most emergency or non-potable water use cases. Plus, the carbon filter element shown in the test reports appears to be different from the one sold currently, so we don’t know whether the test data are translatable.

On the plus side, usability is quite solid: The Purewell 2.25G is easy to set up and maintain. It processes plenty of water relatively quickly for a gravity filter system, and refilling is simplified by the clean tank window, though you’ll have to lean in close to see the remaining water. Alternatively, you can purchase the optional water level spigot, which makes monitoring clean water reserves even easier. Dispensing is extremely fast and splash-free, plus there’s a tank stand already included.

Sturdy 304 stainless steel tanks and an all-metal spigot add value, but the iffy website is concerning.

Despite solid usability and well below-average upfront and ongoing costs, given the underwhelming filtration performance, we think there are better gravity filter systems out there.

Carbon + Fluoride Filters Bottom Line: Potential Aluminum Leaching Puts Us Off (3.66/5.00)

The Purewell 2.25G with K-Series Black Carbon filters + fluoride removal filters scored a final rating of 3.66 out of 5.00.

The addition of the fluoride filters did not enhance fluoride removal. But they increased contact time between the water and the filter media and thus had the beneficial side effect of improving overall contaminant reduction compared to the carbon-only setup. In fact, this combo completely removed 9 impurities from our water.

However, we also observed evidence of potential aluminum leaching, though still below the strictest health guidelines. While it’s likely the less alarming activated alumina (AA) variant, we’d rather not introduce extra contaminants into our water.

With the optional fluoride filters, upfront and ongoing costs are still low. Yet despite rather solid usability and good overall contaminant reduction, we feel the potential aluminum leaching with this configuration plus minimal third-party testing and no NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants warrants looking into other gravity water filters.