Cool story bro. I trust BRS, my test equipment, sampling methodology, career in the environmental industry and degree in hydrogeology to get me where I'm supposed to be in terms of chloramine in my tank. I may just swing by my lab i use to see if they can analyze a few samples with much more accurate equipment to verify my readings. Anecdotally, there are many local reefers who run plain carbon blocks forever with no issues. You haven't convinced me, especially with this statement.
"That is most frequently used today as a source of chloramine is mono chloramine. This is the most difficult of all types of chloramine to remove, because the molecule size is so small it can pass right thru the RO membrane and right into the DI resin."
Exactly, so we knock it out with GAC/CGAC before it even hits the RO membrane. Potentially a second GAC cartridge might give you enough contact time to knock it out prior to RO membrane.
" This means that it can be too difficult for the activated carbon to break down anyway. And heres the killer. It predominates over other di-chloramines at pH levels over 7. Therefore all data obtained on RO systems eliminating chloramine may be irrelevant when mono chloramines are present ad predominate over 7.5 pH."
Show me where you have found that GAC/CGAC won't break down whatever chloramine combo the city uses. I have experimentally verified the exact opposite of what you propose. In fact, from the national water quality association states: "New types of activated carbons (bituminous coal-based) have
been developed with increased catalytic activity that are especially effective at the removal of
chloramines. These new “catalytic” carbons are marketed with a peroxide number (rate of
hydrogen peroxide decomposition) instead of the traditional iodine adsorption number. The
chloramine removal capacity of activated carbon is dependent upon pH. Catalytic carbons have
demonstrated increased chloramine removal efficiency at higher pHs. "