Some user experiences with EcoSmarte may be found on another forum at this thread and we have some more descriptive content about EcoSmarte on this TFP forum here and here. Just wanted to update with the latest in case anyone does a search on this product.

Since Richard was too polite to directly copy from one of his links that he graciously found; I will.

[Edit by JasonLion]Please see the this rule and make sure proper credit is given when quoting or copying material from other sources. In this case the link, look for RickB's post towards the bottom, is quite sufficient. Thanks.

From the blog...it really makes you wonder...but begs the question...all of this effort to avoid a little chlorine...what makes anyone think that copper, silver, bromine or space dust or whatever is any safer than chlorine...especially since the problems are not from chlorine but from unbalanced water...

Just updating this thread with a link to the more recent post on the true effectiveness (or lack thereof) of copper and silver ion systems (EcoSmarte uses copper ions). Copper ions are completely ineffective against fecal and blood-borne bacteria because such bacteria have mechanisms to readily survive in the 0.7 to 1.5 mg/L (ppm) copper ion levels found in human blood serum. They are also generally not effective against viruses or protozoan oocysts.

I have had an EcoSmarte pool now for about 10 years. Before that I've tried several other methods (including chlorine and BAQUACIL) to keep my pool clear. Chlorine seemed to work ok but I'd still have several episodes of algae and cloudy water each year. Besides that, the chlorine was anything but cheap. Constant trips back and forth to the pool store to get drums of chlorine were expensive and time consuming and messy. And my wife was having constant skin problems with the chlorine. I had to find an alternative or fill in my pool.

My experience with Baquacil was a nightmare. It almost put me in the poor-house with the expensive chemicals. Do yourself a favor and stay away from that stuff unless you are rich.

I finally found an ad for the EcoSmarte system. The salesman told me I would need a good pool filter, the copper ionization system and a pool robot cleaner. Since that time I have been totally satisfied with my EcoSmarte system. My pool is always clear and my neighbor, who uses chlorine, is always fighting with his to stay clear. I would NEVER go back to chlorine or any other chemicals. The key to an EcoSmarte pool is putting calcium chloride in the pool in the spring, then keeping the PH low enough for the copper to work. 6.8 to 7.0 is perfect. If I see my pool stairs developing a dark stain, I know its time to add acid. 10 minutes after I've added the acid, the stains are gone and the pool remains perfectly clear. I check my copper about once a week and I don't let it drop below .3

Once the pool is clear, after opening it in the spring, I very seldom need to run my pool robot. I got one of the "new style" Dolphin pool robots recently and that works really great.. much better than my old Hayward robot that connected to the pool pump.

That's all there is to it. I'm an EcoSmarte believer! And I have absolutely no financial interest in the company either. I just love their system.

You had algae with chlorine because you weren't maintaining the pool properly, yet you emphasize how important it is to maintain the water properly with the Ecosmarte. Clear water is no indication of the safety of the water. Viruses and bacteria don't cloud the water, and copper is not an approved sanitizer for either.

The bottom line is that Ecosmarte alone is NOT an approved sanitizer for pool water and both chlorine and Baquacil are. The reason is very simply that copper is not an efficient sanitizer. Copper is slow acting and of limited efficacy. Chlorine is fast acting and has a broad efficacy.

John, Copper is intended as an algaecide and is a proven science. For my own system which is not an Ecosmarte system but the Perma Salt System, I use a blend of Dichlor and Oxone. It works very well. I realize this forum is intended for maintaining your pool rather inexpensively but I have also noticed the many posts throughout the summer so far where people are having one issue after another. I think what people don't understand is that copper works very well when controlled properly. Again, another summer is almost gone and I haven't had any algae, nor staining, etc for 4 years now. All I have had to do is to add PH Plus or Minus a couple of times and shock as I usually would. As the title of this forum states, we can agree to disagree but I for one, would never want to use bleach and "lots of it" nor run to the grocery store, nor spend hours upon hours trying to get it right. As we are happy for your BBB method, don't discount other systems which are just as good if not better. You don't have to swim in my pool as I wouldn't want to swim in a pool where a "lot" of bleach is needed.

Kathi52, copper is an effective algaecide, it is not an effective sanitizer. John was specifically addressing copper's lack of sanitizing ability.

As far as being an algaecide, no one has ever suggested that copper isn't an effective algaecide. The problem is that it has risks, very expensive risks. You have been lucky to have not had problems. Tens of thousands of people have problems with copper every year. And many of those problems end up costing hundreds to thousands of dollars to fix. Would you rather have a 1 in 100 chance of a $1000 problem (copper stains) with copper or a 1 in 50 chance of a $40 problem (algae) without copper?

The vast majority of the people who follow our techniques spend a couple of minutes a day on their pool and never have any problems. Of course they don't post, because nothing has gone wrong. The people who spend "hours upon hours trying to get it right" are people who are switching from baqua or people trying to rescue a pool abandoned years ago.

Sanitizer schmanitizer! I'm not a chemist. But I know I have never had a single problem with my pool since I put in the EcoSmarte system. Say what you want about copper, but the empirical evidence I have encounterd during the past 10 years tells me you are wrong or over-estimating any drawbacks of using copper. I have a pool that is delightful to swim in with no caustic, expensive chemicals that have plagued me in the past. If a few viruses and bacteria want to share my pool, then I will happily comply (as long as they don't bother me and my family). And during the past 10 years that has never happened.

rickpatbb, Well, that would be a deal breaker for me. I'm not sure how I could sort out which ones would bother me and which ones would not.

I understand how you would staunchly defend your position of 10 years but I do not understand who you are trying to reach. This is not a forum where we argue mindlessly about intractable positions but rather a forum where we teach what we know to be solid scientific facts.

What you do with the information we provide is entirely up to you but it is pointless to try to change the minds of thousands and thousands of people who understand and practice what we teach.

How can a pH of 6.8 - 7.0 be pleasant to swim in, or easy on the eyes? I have no dog in this fight, but wonder why you'd want to keep the pH at any extreme?

I at one time considered a cooper system. Heard rave reviews from another pool owner acquaintance several years ago. Just meet up with them earlier this summer and they stated they gave up on their system (frogger???) this year. Expense and time were given as excuses. They now use tabs. I gave them this website but have no idea if they've visited.

PH below about 7.2 tends to cause eyes to sting. The exact PH where that happens varies from person to person. PH below 7.0 can damage copper heat exchangers, used in most gas pool heaters. Significantly any PH low enough to remove copper stains is low enough to damage a heater with a copper heat exchanger.

Since copper ions at pool concentrations do not even inhibit let alone kill fecal bacteria that you shed into the pool, your pool is more like bath water that you are never changing, at least with regards to fecal bacteria. You are swimming in your own fecal matter, literally. At least with the oxidation system the water getting circulated has some chance of getting cleaned up, but any bacteria forming biofilms on surfaces would not circulate and fecal bacteria would not be killed by the copper. The ECOsmarte® website blatantly lies on their website in their Science Summary. There are many incorrect statements, but I'll focus on the ones regarding copper ions and fecal bacteria such as E.coli.

As I noted in this post that I linked to a bit earlier in this thread, fecal bacteria that live in the intestines of the human body have most certainly developed resistance to copper ions since the level of copper ions in blood serum made that a requirement for them to survive (this is not recent resistance, but likely predates humans). Look at the numerous scientific studies confirming the resistance of fecal bacteria to copper ion concentrations (in contradiction to what is claimed on the ECOsmarte® website) and note that the level of copper ion found in the body (including the intestines) is similar to that used in pools that use copper ions, including ECOsmarte®. Bacteria (including fecal bacteria) have been controlled by use of copper/silver combination ionization (as has been done by NASA), but not copper ions alone.

Of course, getting sick from bacteria is a statistical event and depends on your immune system as well. No one is saying that your fecal bacteria is going to make you sick with certainty. We're just saying that copper ions alone won't kill them or even inhibit them so you are increasing your risks, that's all. Also note that depending on the chloride concentration in your pool water, some chlorine may be generated by their oxidation system. As you add more Muriatic Acid to keep the pH low, you add more chloride to the pool. This isn't enough to make a high sustainable chlorine residual, but in smaller pools it might be just enough to inhibit fecal bacteria in some cases, but it's the chlorine doing so, not the copper ions.

I can't speak for all the different copper ion technologies out there. I've only used my EcoSmarte system. And I've used it successfully for 10 years. My only intention was to share my experience with the users of this forum. Based on some of the responses I've received, you'd think I've been swimming in "fecal matter" for the past 10 years. Since I'm not a chemist, I can't speak to exactly what the process is that EcoSmarte uses to address the sanitation issue. I am not aware of any coper/silver ionization process that takes place. But I can tell you I am extremely happy with my EcoSmarte system. Its cheap and easy to maintain and I'm not dripping with fecal matter when I leave my pool. I'd have to ask all you fear mongers exactly what you do for a living and does it have anything to do with selling chlorine???

You have been.



It doesn't address it at all. That's why, unlike chlorine, bromine and biguanide, Ecosmarte doesn't have an EPA approval number as a pool sanitizer. It's not a sanitizer at all on the scale needed for a swimming pool.

Here's an approval number for sodium hypochlorite: 61903-20001
Here's one for biguanide:81002-3
Here's one for sodium bromide: 45337-8

What is the EPA product approval number for Ecosmarte for use in swimming pools? Not the establishment number, which is for a factory, but the product number for Ecosmarte itself.

The great part about finding out what EPA approval number Ecosmarte has is that the EPA uses a sodium hypochlorite solution as the standard against which all other pool sanitizers are tested, so the EPA results will directly tell us how effective Ecosmarte is in comparison to chlorine.

Looking through the test document that is used to evaluate swimming pool sanitizers, I don't see copper listed except as an algaecide. Silver is listed as a primary sanitizer, maybe the Ecosmarte uses silver for sanitizing.

"The silver ions are bactericidal. The copper ions are present to control and/or inhibit algal growth. The ionizers do not oxidize organic matter in the pool and therefore, must be used with oxidizers. Because of the slow kill rate of silver, these systems must be used with a halogen primary sanitizer."

That sounds like testing labs and the EPA don't think copper is a sanitizer at all.

I am a homeowner with a pool and I do not work in the pool or spa or chemical industries.

As noted in the ECOsmarte® Science Summary,


They do not use silver ions. If they did, then at least they would be controlling fecal bacteria. Silver/copper ion systems are still not EPA approved because they kill too slowly so are not allowed in any commercial/public pools without an EPA-approved disinfectant such as chlorine, but they are better than copper-only systems. There are ionization systems that are approved by NSF Standard 50 as listed here, but you will note that they ALL require at least 0.4 ppm chlorine or 0.8 ppm bromine and all are copper/silver combination ion generators.

rickpatbb, since it seems that you may not be looking at the links I provide to peer-reviewed scientific papers and instead are trusting what a manufacturer with a financial incentive is throwing up on their website, I am copying a few of these scientific reports here for you to see.

This source showed that combining chloramine and copper was effective but copper alone was not. Specifically, "No inactivation of E. coli was observed after exposure to 0.4 or 0.8 mg/l cupric chloride after 60 min." This is in direct contradiction to the claim on the ECOsmarte® website that copper kills E.coli at levels of 0.2 ppm. Note that some studies are with copper piping which uses a very different mechanism for killing pathogens and is not related to ion concentrations but rather to generation of hydrogen peroxide at the surface (see this paper for technical details and note that even this paper states "Bacteria such as Escherichia coli possess several specific cellular resistance systems for defense against copper toxicity."). This paper refers to the fecal bacteria Enterococcus faecium that has resistance to copper where the MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) for copper-sensitive strains of Enterococcus faecium is 4 mM (254 ppm copper) so 0.4 ppm copper would have no effect on this bacteria. This paper refers to the fecal bacteria Staphylococcus aureus where the MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) for Staphylococcus aureus is 200 µM (12.7 ppm) copper so 0.4 ppm copper would have no effect on this bacteria. This bacterial resistance to copper is again in direct contradiction to the ECOsmarte® website that claims "No scientific evidence exists that micro organisms are developing immunity to copper ions as has been well documented with various forms of chlorines." I suppose they are technically correct in that the micro-organisms have ALREADY developed immunity to the low copper levels used in pools and found in the human body (possibly millions of years ago) so they have no need to "develop" such immunity! Nevertheless, I would consider such a statement to be extremely deceptive, wouldn't you?

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is very clear in this link that copper and silver ionization systems are not sufficient to make pools sanitary. They wrote (JohnT also posted this in an earlier post in this thread):


Health Canada also states explicitly in this link:


As John noted, the EPA has only approved copper ion products (such as from copper sulfate pentahydrate) as algaecides and not as swimming pool disinfectants.

As for their oxidation system, they are using titanium/platinum oxidation which primarily produces oxygen. They keep referring to hydroxyl radicals on their website, but there is probably more chlorine produced than hydroxyl radicals, depending on chloride level in the pool. If they really wanted to form substantial quantities of hydroxyl radicals, then they would be using boron-doped diamond electrodes such as used by Oxineo® by Adamant Technologies. As described in papers such as this one, these special electrodes do not favor production of oxygen, hydrogen or chlorine, so are very suitable for production of hydroxyl radicals. Such electrodes are more expensive which is probably the primary reason that ECOsmarte® does not use them, but their claim about oxidation using hydroxyl radicals is a stretch. Their website does correctly state that "The bulk of the ECOsmarte® oxidation is molecular oxygen (O2)", but they go on and on about "20-80 grams per minute of oxygen radicals are created from the water" which is just pure bunk. As I noted in my first post in this thread, even at 100% efficiency that would require over 2,000 Amps of electricity!

And again, I note that you may very well be lucky in your pool since the presence of fecal bacteria does not guarantee that one will get sick. It merely increases that probability.

There are no regulations for residential pools or spas requiring the use of EPA-approved disinfectants so you are free to soak in raw sewage if you like. It is similar to there being regulations for commercial food establishments such as restaurants regarding sanitation, but none for your own kitchen where you could not wash your hands and leave a chicken out all day in the sun and then prepare vegetables in its dripped juices on the counter. As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, "you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'".

I agree with Chem 1,000%..whatever he said.

swcg's are the way to go. much less hassle and way way better than these "eco friendly" non chlorine systems. I know a few people running these. they have to acid wash all the time. plus chlorine is 10x more effective and stops deceases being transferred swimmer to swimmer.

we've been running swcgs for almost 3 years and had no problems. actually less problems than tablet run pools. of course chemistry is king with these. but they are awesome and people love to swim in swcg pools. love them to death!

my competitor on the island who was pushing the copper mineral based sanitation on me is now out of business. I'm glad I chose swcg's!!