Connect with us

Tech

I’ve Spent a Year Testing Shower Filters. The Winners Were Clear

Published

on

I’ve Spent a Year Testing Shower Filters. The Winners Were Clear


Compare Our Top Shower Filter Systems

Honorable Mention Shower Filters

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

HigherDose Red Light Shower Filter for $599: This shower filter is in some ways the most intriguing shower filter idea I’ve encountered in the past year—a shower filter that also incorporates a ring of lights delivering dual red and near-infrared wavelengths (650 nm and 850nm) at purported therapeutic intensity. Aside from turning your shower into a discotheque, this amounts to a time-saving measure for those who would otherwise avail themselves of red light therapy on mats or with scary-looking masks. In this case, the red light therapy happens while you shower. The 10-stage filter, in my at-home testing, was able to remove 90 percent of the total chlorine from my chloramine-treated water. We’re still testing and looking into both the filter and the red light therapy over longer-term testing, but the device is already well worth mention.

Image may contain Indoors Bathroom Room Aircraft Airplane Transportation Vehicle and Shower

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Afina A-01 Filtered Showerhead for $129: Afina’s two-stage chlorine filter is as effective as any of the filtered showerheads we tested out of the box, reducing total chlorine levels to undetectable amounts when it’s new. The broad, spa-like spray was also among the most pleasant of any showerhead we tested. But no independent lab testing was offered, and filter replacement is a bit more expensive than some, at $29 every two months with a subscription (or $40 every two months without).

Filterbaby Diamond Series Shower Filter for $113: This inline filter was able to reduce total chlorine levels to undetectable amounts, one of few filters on the market able to do so—and the fact that it’s an inline filter means you’ll be able to keep your existing showerhead and just slot this filter in between the pipe and your showerhead. That said, it’s a bulky filter, which means your showerhead will be about 4 inches lower than it used to be, and the screw-in system is a little awkward: It’s one of the only showerheads I actually needed a wrench to install properly. The replacement filters are designed to use minimal plastic, but they are also more expensive than most, at $42 every three months.

Image may contain Indoors Bathroom Room Shower Faucet and Shower

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Sproos! Filtered Hand Shower for $148 ($120 with subscription): Sproos is a quirky, kicky, kooky shower brand aimed squarely at young “renters and DIYers”—offering a rainbow of bold colors for handheld filtered showerheads. Sproos has made some improvements to its design since WIRED first tested in 2024. Its shower filters are also recyclable, a rare distinction. The filters removed most, but still not all total chlorine out of the box upon our testing in early 2026, in a chloramine-treated water system. And like a lot of shower filters, no independent lab testing has been released publicly.

Hydroviv Filtered Shower Head for $160: Hydroviv is a water filter company of long standing, and its KDF-55, calcium sulfite, and catalyzed carbon showerhead ranks among the few shower filters I’ve tested that was able to filter total chlorine levels down to undetectable levels in a chloramine-treated water system. Hydroviv suggests filter replacements once every six months, a longer span than comparable shower filters such as Canopy or Afina; that said, its $75 filters cost double or more what other filters do, and I noted significant loss of efficacy after four months. As with most makers of shower filters, requests to see independent lab testing results were unsuccessful. Hydroviv claims its filter media help reduce bacterial growth, though the materials cited are the same listed in other shower filters.

Image may contain Indoors Bathroom Room Shower and Shower Faucet

ShowerClear Filtered Shower Head, pictured as installed at a WIRED reviewer’s home.Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

ShowerClear Showerhead for $139: OK, you got me. This isn’t a filter. The ShowerClear is instead designed to solve a problem you probably hadn’t thought about but now may keep you up at night: Potentially infectious bacteria called mycobacteria, prone to causing lung infections, enjoy growing inside showerheads and are resistant to chlorine-treated water. They grow in colonies, a bit like fungus. Hence, the name. What’s worse, if you can’t open up your showerhead, you can’t see them and you don’t know they’re there. Gives you the willies. Anyway, this ShowerClear has a hinge and a latch. This means you can open it up, look inside, and clean its interior completely, with soap or vinegar or disinfectants. This is a very rare quality even among filtered showerheads. I’d be happier if the ShowerClear’s water flow fanned out a little better, or if the latch were less of a defining design feature. But what’s all that for a little peace of mind? (That said, if you want a filter to remove chlorine, you’ll also need an inline filter like the Weddell Duo.)

Image may contain Indoors Bathroom Room and Shower

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Croix Filtered Showerhead for $129 and Croix Handheld Showerhead for $129: Shower filter company Croix was founded by chemical engineer Spencer Robertson, an old hand at water filtration. The fixed showerhead is handsome, and the handheld shower has a much broader array of spray settings than most—including a fun, ultra-broad spray setting that’s like a savagely powerful misting device. This said, the KDF-55 and calcium sulfite filter didn’t filter even close to the majority of total chlorine levels from my chloramine-treated water system. Based on results I’ve reviewed from Croix’s internal testing, I’d more likely recommend this device for chlorine-treated systems like the one in New York City. WIRED was able to review internal testing showing that Croix’s filters were successful at filtering most free chlorine from water, in accordance with NSF standards. Replacement cartridges and filters are reasonably priced and recommended once every four months, a longer interval than most brands on the market.

Silver elongated showerhead turned on with white tiles in the background and a white filter attachment connected to the...

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Aquasana Inline Filter for $150: Aquasana’s funnily bulbous two-layer filter removed the majority of total chlorine in my chloramine-treated system, and it was also one of the only shower filter companies to offer independent testing data backing up its claims for chlorine-based systems. So far, so good. So why’s it not up near the top of our list? A flimsy shower wand with poor spray force and radius, a slight but unfortunate tendency toward leakiness at the shower connection, and unforgiving geometry that means it doesn’t link up well with all showerheads as an inline filter. Still, it works and it’s lab-attested for free chlorine removal, and I happily recommend it.

Silver showerhead with white tiles and blue walls in the background

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Jolie Filtered Showerhead for $169: The Jolie showerhead pioneered the influencer-centric, testimonial-driven marketing model that has made shower filters so dominant in the public conversation. Its design, which looks a bit like a giant Monopoly playing piece and comes in chrome, gold, black, or red, is eminently likable. The device offers even water spray and a soft, stippled faceplate that feels luxuriant in the strangest of ways. But Jolie didn’t respond to requests for independent testing when we asked in 2024, and our own testing put it somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of removing total chlorine from a chloramine-treated system.

Also Tested

Kohler Cinq for $150: Kohler is a venerable Wisconsin brand with a number of water treatment options for showers and faucets. The Cinq filtered showerhead is admirably classic in form, and its five-layer filter looked equally promising, advertising in particular KDF-55 and activated carbon. Home testing didn’t show great results with my chloramine-treated water, however, and for the price I felt entitled to high expectations. Requests for independent lab testing data in 2024 didn’t get results.

Act + Acre Showerhead Filter for $120: Beauty company Act + Acre’s filtered showerhead didn’t perform as well as others in my home testing of total chlorine. We also didn’t fall in love with the showerhead itself, which looks a bit like a gooseneck desk lamp and droops awkwardly from the shower pipe.

Frequently Asked Questions

How We Tested and What We Tested

Image may contain Electronics Screen Computer Hardware Hardware Monitor Clock Digital Clock and Alarm Clock

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

The market for filtered showerheads remains young and largely unregulated, and performance claims are only rarely backed up publicly by independent data. We made lots of requests, but few shower filter companies hand over their lab results. (Thank you Rorra, Aquasana, Weddell, Croix, and Curo for being exceptions.)

Some makers told us that independent labs and certifying bodies have been backed up, and that data is forthcoming. Many offered customer satisfaction surveys or anecdotal studies instead. This all means that some skepticism is warranted.

And so I also got out test kits at home. First I test the total chlorine levels in the water without any filtering, a measure that includes either chloramine or free chlorine that’s interacted with whatever’s in your pipes. Then I test the water filtered by the showerhead. I perform each test multiple times to account for imprecision or fluctuations in testing and in municipal chlorine levels. In most cases, I do this over multiple days upon initial testing to account for any inconsistencies in my own water supply.

For testing, I avoided painfully unreliable home test strips, and instead got out somewhat nasty chemical indicators and used digital and chemical tests designed for pools and aquariums.

We also tested total dissolved solids using a TDS meter, and separately tested filters’ effects on pH in order to gauge effects but also to verify the reliability of chemical test results.

The effectiveness of filters goes down over time, of course, depending on how much contamination is filtered out of the water—which is why filters always need to be changed. As we update this guide, we continue to test the most effective showerhead filters to see how their efficacy changes over time—and add any new shower filters we’re able to recommend.

What Does a Shower Filter Do?

The biggest thing that most shower water filters tackle, in a measurable way, is filter chlorine and chlorine compounds, mostly through chemical reactions. Pretty much every American city adds low concentrations of chlorine or chlorine compounds to drinking water to kill potentially harmful bacteria. This is all well and good when the water’s still in the pipes. But chlorine’s not exactly great for your hair or your skin, and few people like to drink it. Some are also especially sensitive to the taste or smell, or prone to skin reactions.

The most prominent home shower filters rely in part on a zinc-copper mixture called KDF-55, known to be quite effective at neutralizing “free” chlorine in chlorine-treated systems. Other common substances used to treat chlorine and chlorine compounds include calcium sulfite and activated or catalytic carbon. The most effective filters use these in some combination. The main thing I was able to test and verify was the best shower water filters’ ability to remove the total chlorine content of water coming out of your shower.

We’ve seen little evidence that the most common types of showerhead filters have much effect on the softness or hardness of water, or on calcium buildup. In fact, some early academic studies present evidence that they don’t. The shower filters we tested also had very little effect on the sum total of dissolved solids in our water, according to measurements with a TDS meter—i.e., the filters aren’t removing a large amount of materials or minerals from the water.

I wasn’t able to test claims by some companies that these filters remove heavy metals like lead and arsenic, which thankfully aren’t in my pipes. We only found one company, Weddell, whose filter was certified to remove leadr. So far, so good! Nonetheless, if you believe you have dangerous lead or arsenic in your water, you probably shouldn’t try to fix the problem with a mail-order showerhead. Talk to a water treatment professional or your public health authority.

Does My City Use Chlorine or Chloramine?

If you live in a major US city, chlorine is likely not what your city uses to treat the water in its pipes. New York, Chicago, Seattle, and Phoenix use chlorine, sure. But Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, and most big cities in Texas don’t.

More than half of American big cities use a substance called chloramine, a more stable and enduring chemical that’s harder to filter and test. That’s also what was in my water supply. To test, I got out my handy digital water colorimeter and a somewhat nasty chemical indicator, and then tested the ability of each shower filter to treat any of a number of chlorine compounds in the water.

Curious whether your city uses chlorine or chloramine as a disinfectant in your pipes? Check here for an accounting of the 50 biggest municipal water systems in the United States.

Are Shower Filters Effective for Hard Water?

No, probably not.

The best shower filters I tested will improve your water quality, largely by removing chlorine and chloramine compounds—and other contaminants that may include heavy metals.

But shower filters can only do so much. You probably shouldn’t expect these shower filters to soften the mineral hardness of your water or remove most substances, which derives mostly from dissolved calsium and magnesium salts in your water.

After all, a filter must be relatively small to fit into a showerhead. And yet it’s being asked to filter gallons of water each minute, pushed out at both high temperature and high pressure. A showerhead filter poses a daunting engineering challenge, as compared to countertop water filters that treat only a small amount of water at a time—or a bulky reverse-osmosis device that can plug into your under-sink plumbing

Hard water is more often solved by specific water softeners, reverse osmosis filters, and whole-house water filtration systems. Some early studies show that a number of shower filters may even add a small amount of hardness to your water, via calcium sulfite filters,

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

‘The Last Airbender’ Leaked Online. Some Fans Say Paramount Deserves the Fallout

Published

on

‘The Last Airbender’ Leaked Online. Some Fans Say Paramount Deserves the Fallout


The online leak of a full version of Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender—a highly anticipated animated film in a multimedia fantasy franchise—has divided passionate fans while upsetting those who spent years working on the film.

The leaks began on X late on Saturday night, about six months before Aang was scheduled to premiere on Paramount+. User @ImStillDissin posted two short clips from the film. “Nickelodeon accidentally emailed me the entire Avatar aang movie,” he claimed. He also threatened to stream the entire movie if Paramount didn’t release an official trailer, and he posted a still from the movie’s end credits, revealing previously undisclosed voice-over cast and roles. The media from @ImStillDissin’s posts were later hit with copyright strikes and removed.

But within 48 hours, links to download the full movie appeared on 4chan and X, where some users also directly streamed the film. Across the web, fans said they had successfully pirated and watched what appeared to be a nearly finished and “beautiful” animated film.

While some argued that Paramount deserved to be punished because of certain creative and marketing decisions around the movie, others noted what a blow the leak was to the animators and production crew. A number of those team members took to social media to convey their sadness and frustration.

“We worked on the aang movie for years with the expectation that’d [sic] we’d get to celebrate all of our hard work in theaters. Just to see people unceremoniously leak the film and pass our shots around on twitter like candy,” animator Julia Schoel wrote Tuesday on X.

The user behind @ImStillDissin, who would not reveal his real name due to fear of legal repercussions, tells WIRED that he obtained the movie almost by chance and did not expect his posts to set off such a crisis in the entertainment world. “When I posted those clips I was purely trolling,” he says. “I was expecting a day of clout farming at best, not for the whole thing to blow up like this.”

(While WIRED has done its due diligence in verifying that the person speaking to us was behind the @ImStillDissin X account, we acknowledge that the hacking community is known to troll.)

According to @ImStillDissin, a screen-grabbed version of Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender was circulating among people he knew from his days in the hacking community, one of whom shared it with him. “Broadly speaking, the supply chain for movies and TV is rife with insecure companies and vendors and lax checks,” he claims. He notes that two different SpongeBob SquarePants movies leaked months before their release dates in 2024. “Someone on 4chan who wasn’t happy at me drip-feeding stuff posted a copy of a draft script [of the new Avatar film] from like two years back,” says @ImStillDissin.

Neither Nickelodeon nor its parent company Paramount have confirmed a hack had taken place, nor have they issued a statement on the matter. They also did not respond to requests for comment.

Originally announced in 2021, Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender marked the first production for Avatar Studios, a division of Nickelodeon’s animation department.

Some people felt justified in pirating and sharing the movie due to the recasting of voice actors. Last year, during a Reddit AMA, casting director Jenny Jue wrote that the voice cast from the Avatar TV show that aired on Nickelodeon in the 2000s was not returning due to efforts to “match actors’ ethnic/racial background to the characters they’re portraying.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

NASA Wants to Put Nuclear Reactors on the Moon

Published

on

NASA Wants to Put Nuclear Reactors on the Moon


Having demonstrated that it has the operational capability to transport humans safely to the moon and back, the United States is moving on to its next major aim: It wants nuclear reactors in orbit and on the lunar surface by 2030. For such a feat, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will have to work in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

In a post on X, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) unveiled a document with new guidelines for federal agencies to establish the space nuclear technology road map for the coming years. This, they say, will ensure “US space superiority.”

At present, space instruments use solar power to operate. However, this is considered impractical for more complex purposes. Although technically there is always sunlight, the power is intermittent and almost always requires bulky batteries to store it.

Reactors produce fairly continuous energy for years through nuclear fission. They can also be used for so-called nuclear electric propulsion. Continuous output makes them the most viable option for lunar base subsistence, but they can also allow spacecraft to undertake long or complex missions without worrying about depleting a limited supply of chemical fuel.

Nuclear technology, in short, makes it possible to go farther, with more payload, for longer, and with fewer constraints.

According to the memorandum, the US goal is to put a medium-power reactor in orbit by 2028, with a variant designed for nuclear electric propulsion, and a first functional large reactor on the surface of the moon by 2030. To achieve this, both NASA and the Pentagon will develop energy technologies in parallel, using the current strategy of competition among contractors.

The reactors will have to be modular and scalable, and will have to include applications for both future life on the moon and space propulsion. For its part, the DOE will have to ensure that these projects have the fuel, infrastructure, and safety features necessary to achieve their objectives. In addition, the agency will evaluate whether the industry has the capacity to produce up to four reactors in five years.

The plan contemplates technologies that produce at least 20 kilowatts of electricity (kWe) for three years in orbit and at least five years on the lunar surface. In the meantime, they should have a design capable of raising power to 100 kWe. The first designs should arrive within a year.

Finally, the order tasks the OSTP with creating a road map for the initiative, noting obstacles and recommendations for addressing them.

“Nuclear power in space will give us the sustained electricity, heating, and propulsion essential to a permanent presence on the moon, Mars, and beyond,” OSTP posted. For his part, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman posted, “The time has come for America to get underway on nuclear power in space.” The message was followed by an emoji of a US flag.

The plan provides a common framework for each agency to work within. In the background, the race for space infrastructure is evidence of technological competition with China, which is also seeking advanced energy capabilities for the moon.

This story originally appeared in WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

AI Could Democratize One of Tech’s Most Valuable Resources

Published

on

AI Could Democratize One of Tech’s Most Valuable Resources


Nvidia is the undisputed king of AI chips. But thanks to the AI it helped build, the champ could soon face growing competition.

Modern AI runs on Nvidia designs, a dynamic that has propelled the company to a market cap of well over $4 trillion. Each new generation of Nvidia chip allows companies to train more powerful AI models using hundreds or thousands of processors networked together inside vast data centers. One reason for Nvidia’s success is that it provides software to help program each new generation of chip. That may soon not be such a differentiated skill.

A startup called Wafer is training AI models to do one of the most difficult and important jobs in AI—optimizing code so that it runs as efficiently as possible on a particular silicon chip.

Emilio Andere, cofounder and CEO of Wafer, says the company performs reinforcement learning on open source models to teach them to write kernel code, or software that interacts directly with hardware in an operating system. Andere says Wafer also adds “agentic harnesses” to existing coding models like Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s GPT to soup up their ability to write code that runs directly on chips.

Many prominent tech companies now have their own chips. Apple and others have for years used custom silicon to improve the performance and the efficiency of software running on laptops, tablets, and smartphones. At the other end of the scale, companies like Google and Amazon mint their own silicon to improve the performance of their cloud-computing platforms. Meta recently said it would deploy 1 gigawatt of compute capacity with a new chip developed with Broadcom. Deploying custom silicon also involves writing a lot of code so that it runs smoothly and efficiently on the new processor.

Wafer is working with companies including AMD and Amazon to help optimize software to run efficiently on their hardware. The startup has so far raised $4 million in seed funding from Google’s Jeff Dean, Wojciech Zaremba of OpenAI, and others.

Andere believes that his company’s AI-led approach has the potential to challenge Nvidia’s dominance. A number of high-end chips now offer similar raw floating point performance—a key industry benchmark of a chip’s ability to perform simple calculations—to Nvidia’s best silicon.

“The best AMD hardware, the best [Amazon] Trainium hardware, the best [Google] TPUs, give you the same theoretical flops to Nvidia GPUs,” Andere told me recently. “We want to maximize intelligence per watt.”

Performance engineers with the skill needed to optimize code to run reliably and efficiently on these chips are expensive and in high demand, Andere says, while Nvidia’s software ecosystem makes it easier to write and maintain code for its chips. That makes it hard for even the biggest tech companies to go it alone.

When Anthropic partnered with Amazon to build its AI models on Trainium, for instance, it had to rewrite its model’s code from scratch to make it run as efficiently as possible on the hardware, Andere says.

Of course, Anthropic’s Claude is now one of many AI models that are now superhuman at writing code. So Andere reckons it may not be long before AI starts consuming Nvidia software advantage.

“The moat lives in the programmability of the chip,” Andere says in reference to the libraries and software tools that make it easier to optimize code for Nvidia hardware. “I think it’s time to start rethinking whether that’s actually a strong moat.”

Besides making it easier to optimize code for different silicon, AI may soon make it easier to design chips themselves. Ricursive Intelligence, a startup founded by two ex-Google engineers, Azalia Mirhoseini and Anna Goldie, is developing new ways to design computer chips with artificial intelligence. If its technology takes off, a lot more companies could branch into chip design, creating custom silicon that runs their software more efficiently.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending