Inline hose filter for removing chloramine?

[zendog]

I'm trying to speed up water changes and don't really like just dumping untreated water in my tanks and adding prime directly, especially when I'm doing a really big water change.

Has anyone used an inline filter on a garden hose like this:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007I6MN72/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A7U8PO7D25UJR&psc=1

I'm not sure if it works well enough to not still add some dechlor, but I'm hopeful. I'm thinking of getting it and testing it in garden tubs with some rosy red minnows. It does say that it isn't for use with fish, but that appears to be mostly to keep from being blamed for killing off expensive koi, etc. If it removes the chloramines in my water it should be good, right?

Thoughts?

Interestingly, many people in the reviews rave about how it helps their gardens. I hadn't really thought of all the beneficial things that the chloramine might be killing in my soil, but it makes sense.

 

[mchambers]

Interesting idea!

Forget about your yard, Think about what chloramine may be doing to your microbiome. As far as i can tell, there really haven’t been any serious studies of this.

 

[Frank Cowherd]

Carbon filters work for this, but flow rate and amount you can treat depend on the size of the cartridge. So you have to control flow rate and you have to test particularly with small cartridges to be sure it is still working. Very large filters like whole house ones can support high flow rates and manufacturers suggest timing for replacement. I know a person who never changed his whole house carbon filter for 10 years and it continued to work without loss of fish, but I think the reason was that the carbon bed became populated with bacteria and that resulted in consumption of the active chlorine.

BTW, unless there is a really high level of active chlorine or chloramine in the tap water, adding like ten percent tap water without dechlorinating should cause no problem.

The small Brita filter is good for like 40 gallons of water

 

[mchambers]

I think you meant "without loss of fish". At least that's what I'm hoping.