Please read the NSF STANDARD 50, this is a series of different testings procedures over a period of a year that takes into account all facets of pool operation, efficacy, reliability, staining, ext, to establish the systems suitability and performance before it is granted a pass or a fail. Enviroswim was granted a pass.
By the way a measure of residual disinfection is not a measure of how clean and safe pool water is, it is only a measure of the background sanitiser.
The only true measure of how safe pool water is, is a microbiological test, which tests for several common pool water contaminants.

I am intimately familiar with NSF 50. I work with NSF on a very regular basis and have been a task force member on several parts of standard 50. Just because the unit has met the NSF 50 standard does not mean it is acceptable for use as a primary disinfectant on a commercial pool.

Which laboratory did the NSF 50 standard testing and listing for Enviroswim? I don't see the product listed on the NSF website, except for under Watertech systems but that's a UL 1081 listing, not an NSF Std. 50 Listing. Did you use ETL, WQA, UL, or another lab?

This link and this link shows that the company that makes Enviroswim is listed, but NOT for NSF Standard 50, but rather for UL STANDARD 1081 Swimming Pool Pumps, Filters, and Chlorinators. This standard is NOT for efficacy, but for safety. The copper/silver ion generators under NSF Standard 50 are listed here where they ALL require 0.4 ppm chlorine (or 0.8 ppm bromine). The Enviroswim website shows an NSF Certificate that lists NSF/ANSI 50, but I just wrote to NSF about this to see what is really going on. The standard for efficacy that NSF Standard 50 uses is the EPA DIS/TSS-12 and the ONLY approved disinfectants passing this standard are products that include chlorine, bromine, Baquacil/biguanide/PHMB for pools. For spas, the Nature2 product, which uses silver (and zinc) ions with MPS is also approved but this works only at hot spa temperatures and is not approved for pools without chlorine.

Their ES-3 research report by the TWEED LABORATORY CENTRE in New South Wales, Australia does show a >4 log reduction in bacteria in 30 seconds, but the only thing tested in the residual water was copper and silver which shouldn't kill that quickly alone. They measured high ORP so perhaps the samples were taken at the outlet into the spa. That would explain the results, but would be cheating. [EDIT] See my newer post where this mystery is solved as the system actually generates some chlorine. [END-EDIT] At hot spa temps, MPS (with silver ion) could be used to achieve the higher ORP and kill times, but they don't mention anything about that in the report, but taking samples at the outlet is not the same as having a residual in the water. Also, the ES-3 test is for a spa not a pool. The ES-1 test is for a pool, but uses chlorine, yet their first FAQ says "Eliminates the need for chlorine in domestic swimming pools" though they note that chlorine is still required for commercial pools ("Dramatically reduces the need for chlorine in commercial swimming pools"). There is no research report on their site for pools that does not use chlorine.

Basically, their system is a supplemental oxidation system, similar to using ozone, but does not provide a residual disinfectant in the water (the copper is mostly an algaecide and the silver lets you have a lower chlorine level but is too slow in kill times on its own) which is why chlorine is still required in commercial pools. The only reason it isn't required in residential pools is the same reason as in the U.S. which is that such pools are not regulated and you can soak in raw sewage as far as the government is concerned.

Richard

So some of the mysteries are being solved. I wrote both to Watertech and to NSF and they both told me that the ES-3 WAS certified to NSF Standard 50, but that the registration was not renewed so that it is now no longer certified. The reason is apparently the high cost due to travel required for quarterly factory inspection and listing fees. This may be a temporary situation and some other companies may be doing similar things in this tight economy. What is still not clear to me and that I am awaiting clarification is how the system was listed. If it was with the copper/silver ion generators here you will notice that all products have the following note [1] where the bold emphasis is mine:


When I questioned in my earlier post about the ES-3 spa tests that Watertech posted in their Research section as some sort of cheating, I was told by Watertech that they recommend the TDS to be 1000 ppm and that at these levels NSF measured a chlorine production rate of 0.0091 lbs per hour (that's 4.1 grams per hour). Though the ES-3 test report wrote that the chlorine level “at the start of the trial was < 0.01 mg/L”, the report also wrote that “The Enviroswim system was switched on prior to innoculation and long enough to establish the desired Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) levels for each particular trial...”. The test report measured conductivity at around 900 µS/cm which roughly translates to around 500 ppm TDS, not 1000, but if I use the 0.0091 pounds per hour chlorine production rate in the 1500 liter (about 400 gallons) spa, then it only takes around 11 minutes to get to a 0.5 ppm chlorine level that would explain both the ORP levels and the bacterial kill rates. So in essence the ES-3 is, among other things, a small saltwater chlorine generator (SWG) operating at low salt levels and producing chlorine. This was not a chlorine-free system during the test.

The Australian government has written about copper/ion systems on the APVMA website. On this page they write the following (bold emphasis mine):


They also dedicate an entire page to issues with copper/silver ion generators here.

With respect to the Watertech products, the ES-1 is listed as registered here (or here) where it has a "Summary of Use: For the control of algae in swimming pools and spas." It is not listed as the chlorine products that have a "Summary of Use: For the control of algae and bacteria in swimming pools" such as with Cal-Hypo or "Summary of Use: For the control of bacteria and algae in outdoor swimming pools" for stabilized chlorine products. The label for the ES-1 states "A registered sanitiser MUST be used with this product when the pool is used for bathing." I could not find any listing on the APVMA website for the ES-3 product (use this link and search the PubCRIS database for Watertech in the Registrant or Enviroswim in the Product Name and find only the ES-1 product as a "POOL ALGICIDE"). Remember that the ES-1 test report was in pools and used separately added chlorine. The ES-3 test report was in a spa where the ES-3 generated chlorine. There is no research report on the Watertech site for pools that does not use chlorine while the ES-3 for spas would not be chlorine-free since the unit itself would generate some chlorine though at only 0.11 ppm FC per hour in 10,000 gallons, supplemental chlorine would likely be needed for commercial/public pools (remember that residential pools are not regulated in terms of sanitation requirements).

Richard, you never cease to amaze me! The world but be much worse off without you.

Thanks for the info. It's funny how people will leave out some facts to make their case look better.

Yes it's called a marketing department

I do not work in the pool industry at all, I am just a user of Enviroswim and have been for some years now (i think 3?).

I was talking to a friend who is a pool maintenance guy and he was warning me about such scam products using copper and silver etc. He told me that while my pool might look great it will be full of bacteria and that the high levels of copper will be discolouring the pool and people's hair. I am not home (away on holiday) so i cannot recheck the levels in the pool so I have been sniffing on-line and have read this thread with interest.

I am not a chemist and cannot argue with much brighter people than I who have contributed to this thread. However, i thought I would state some facts.
- Our pool is so clean one needs to throw something into it to check if there is water.
- The tiles are equally clean.
- With fair skinned children, the reason we went to Enviroswim was to avoid the dreaded feeling of an over chlorinated pool. (we had a service guy come to rebalance once a week in summer months). Since getting the ES3 system we have had no such problems and indeed feel no need to shower after a swim, the water is like mineral water from a bottle.
- Instead of the $75 plus chemicals per visit, we have had no one to rebalance the pool at all.
- That said, i have had a new cover fitted and a new vacuum system, both times I have the water tested and both times, no changes were required. I check the pool myself every now and then and everything is within balance except Chlorine which we do not add.

So, i will get the water tested when i get home and get full analysis done as this conversation today and then this thread has given me concerns - but I thought i would share with interested readers my experience.

I restate, I do not work for Enviroswim nor do i have anything to do with this industry.

I promise to post the results of the water test once done.

Pool is 12 mtrs x 5 mtrs X 1-2mtrs deep. concrete and tile.

Welcome to TFP!

I don't believe anyone is saying that these products are a scam. They do what they do. It's only if claims are made about them being as sanitary as a chlorinated pool where that would be considered to be a scam or at least fraudulent, but they make no such direct claims. The website is a bit misleading in that one has to dig further into seeing that NSF Standard 50 certification requires 0.4 ppm chlorine (or 0.8 ppm bromine) to be used with copper/silver ionization systems and that APVMA has similar requirements and that such systems are not allowed in commercial/public pools without chlorine. However, the system does appear to oxidize, just as good ozonators do (though many ozonators for residential pools are far too undersized) and the system produces copper and silver ions for the bulk pool water.

With the ES-3, you get both copper and silver ions in the bulk pool water and get an electrolytic oxidation system that, among other things, produces a small amount of chlorine. Your 12 meter x 5 meter x 1.5 meter pool is 90,000 liters or about 24,000 gallons. As you probably read in my earlier post above, Watertech recommends a TDS of 1000 ppm -- what is your current TDS (or salt) level? At this TDS level, according to Watertech (based on NSF test data), 0.0091 pounds of chlorine per hour is produced by the ES-3 which is 0.045 ppm Free Chlorine (FC) per hour in 24,000 gallons. So between the copper and silver ions and the very low level of produced chlorine (though it won't last very long in the bulk pool water if exposed to sunlight), I would not expect uncontrolled bacterial growth in the pool. As you can see from this post I wrote on disinfection rates of copper and silver ions, using a combination will generally prevent uncontrolled bacterial growth (though copper ions alone will not -- you need both copper and silver), but will not necessarily prevent person-to-person transmission and will also not be effective against killing viruses or protozoan oocysts (unless these circulate through the ES-3 system) which is why this system is not allowed in any commercial/public pool without at least some (0.4 ppm for NSF Standard 50) chlorine.

So I suspect that you won't find significant bacteria levels in the pool unless you take samples while bathers are excreting bacteria and then quelch the sample to stop continued killing. Or you can take a water sample and introduce bacteria and note log-reduction kill times. You could also test for viral transmission, but that's harder to do. What do you do to prevent metal staining from the copper and silver ions? Do you keep your pH lower? Are you testing for copper and silver ion levels (easy to do with copper; very hard to do with silver though these are normally in proportion based on the electrodes that are used to produce them)? Does anyone who swims in the pool have blond hair? Do you live in Australia?

As an aside, I personally find it telling that EPA DIS/TSS-12 compares test items to bleach as a standard...

What do you do to prevent metal staining from the copper and silver ions? Do you keep your pH lower? Are you testing for copper and silver ion levels (easy to do with copper; very hard to do with silver though these are normally in proportion based on the electrodes that are used to produce them)? Does anyone who swims in the pool have blond hair? Do you live in Australia?

hi, thanks for your reply. i confess you are talking outside my comfort zone. I can answer the questions above however. I have checked and the system was installed mid 2009. Since then i have not personally checked or done anything re PH at all. As above, i have had the pool tested a couple of times but never needed to do anything. i checked PH today and it is high (8) so i am attending to that now. I checked also for copper & silver levels and it was at 0.5ppm. I have lowered the dial a tad but i believe that is pretty good. The TDS was at 1000. I am going to get a full analysis done of the water and will post the results.

I do live in Australia (hot here now) and have fair skinned/haired family. As i say, this serious of questions and concerns has got me worried enough to get tests done - but the anecdotal evidence is that the pool is crystal clear, no stains on the pool tiles or in swimmers hair. Family and friends all comment on how clean and clear the water looks (and tastes so i hope it is clean!).

Again, i feel like a salesman but rest assured i am not. Stay tuned for the results of the water test. (does anyone have a suggested lab to complete the tests?)

cheers, jon.

Ok, getting a pool for the first time. I work in IT so the first person that accuses me of being a pool-guy will get their computer crashed....just kidding.

Anyway, I was looking at the low or no chemical options because it does sound attractive. If it actually works like they say it does then its a "no brainer." The jury is apparently still out on that one as I see there has been some fairly spirited discussion. Anyway I became a member because I'll probably end up wallowing in chlorine like many others, since I really haven't read many unbiased answers about alternatives. Unfortunately, you can't believe the all the "roses and sunshine" reviews on the company websites. Of course they're all good! I haven't seen a company honest or dumb enough to post the bad ones...unless they have a happy ending....I love those...wiping my tears now.

Ok, seriously though. I have to ask this question, are we really saying that there is not one person on this planet that has ECOsmarte or the like that is happy with it?
-Because if the answer is NO I don't know how they are finding the funds to remain in business and they should be sued until they have no funds
-But if the answer is YES then lets seriously find out who made it work and how they did it

I tend to believe it's the later at the moment.

All the tests and studies honestly don't mean squat to me because the proof is in the pudding. If it is working somewhere then it just is -- don't throw studies at it.

By the way, I have never been in a chlorine pool that didn't burn my eyes, or dry my skin, or do funny things to my hair. But I'll also say that if no one out there has successfully implemented a pool without chlorine or SWG, then I'll suck it up and deal. I really want my pool.

Just FYI - I'm looking at a 20x41 double Roman end, hopper style, automatic cover (I'm lazy), gas heater, filtering undecided, sanitation undecided, galvanized steel frame, vinyl liner. My guy is coming out this weekend for me to sign the contract for early Spring. He knows I'm still undecided on filtering and water sanitation. He's a SWG guy (Jandy) but he's open to doing the a ion system. Any Jandy thoughts?




Thanks for the read

When things go well, a pool will look good. Swimming pools will absorb a lot of variables, and with some luck, you can get through an entire season with no apparent problems. You can do it with exclusive use of tabs, or an ionizer, or a UV setup, or possibly even a sanitizer stone. That last one, of course, is the rock that I can sell you to keep your water pristine and virtually effort-free. I can set up your pool, install the stone, and instruct you in the care of your new pool system, and guarantee your satisfaction. In the rare circumstance that you happen to have some issue, I'll certainly have a tech on-site to make sure we take care of it. Oh, it's probably just needing a ph adjustment, and a little bit of our proprietary 'StoneWash' solution to get everything back in line.

I have heard from several people who had ECOsmarte for one or two years without any problems. I've never heard from anyone who had ECOsmatre for more than a couple years without problems. I have also heard from many many people who got ECOsmarte and had problems right away. The most common problems are unsightly staining that costs thousands of dollars to remove and then comes back over and over again.

On the other hand I have heard from thousands of people using chlorine who have never had any significant problems since they started following our advice (or similar procedures learned elsewhere). Several of them with a decade or more of experience. That is not to say that chlorine is perfect, certainly it is possible, even somewhat common, to do chlorine wrong and have problems. The most common problems in outdoor residential pools are algae blooms caused by ignoring the pool for days or weeks at a time, and are easily solved, normally for under $100.

Burning eyes, dry skin, and damaged hair are all signs of chlorine being done wrong. Those problems are almost always associated with indoor public pools. Maintaing indoor public pools is difficult and few people do it well. Outdoor residential pools are very easy by comparison and those problems are almost unheard of.

SWG systems are by far the simplest way to maintain a pool. That doesn't mean they are maintenance free or completely automatic, but they aren't especially complicated either. There are also other good alternatives. Many people here like to add chlorine manually because it is slightly less expensive and because it gives them more control, but it does mean spending just a little more time on the pool.

That actually helps me a lot. I'm going to go with salt.

Jasonlion I was looking at you pool set up and noticed you're using autopilot sand and whisper. Anything you would change about it?


Also have you ever used a nonchlorine shock like potassium monopersulfate?

Oh, sorry a couple of more salt questions

Precautions:
Are there any special precautions as far as impact on coping, impact on concrete, best filtering to use, etc.

Basically a best practices guide for SWG.

I'm going to check out the SWG parts of this site but thought I'd round out my interactions with this particular thread with these questions.


Thanks again

Hi-jacking the thread a little but ohm_boy has succinctly expressed a universal truth that all pool owners, new and experienced, need to keep in mind. You may well "get away" with stuff that's not good for your pool....perhaps for years, but it almost always catches up with you......it just takes some time.

I really wish I had a second skimmer. With just the one skimmer and no drain there can be problems in the fall with leaves falling and blocking the skimmer. Other than that, I am very happy. The choices I made aren't the very best choices for everyone. I love AutoPilot units, but they can be expensive. People on a tight budget might be better served picking a different brand. Also, if your electric rates are significantly higher than mine you might want to go with a variable speed pump instead of the single speed I am using.

I have tried it. I don't recommend it except in a few specific situations. MPS costs more than chlorine, so there is no point in using it when chlorine will do the same job. MPS can be very handy in public pools and for indoor pools, where it helps prevent CC problems. Outdoor residential pools don't have much of a CC issue, so there isn't any need for MPS.

Start with Water Balance for SWGs. The main thing as far as corrosion risks is to avoid the softer natural stones in the pool area. This is the subject of some disagreement, but it looks like soft stone work, especially sandstone and some flagstone, can be damaged by salt. Just about everything else will be fine. Every now and then you find a screw or bolt made of inferior materials that corrodes, but that as gotten to be quite rare as manufacturers have adjusted the materials they use because of the increased popularity of SWGs

Thanks for the quick response. Excellent info. I like the second skimmer and variable speed pump idea.

I'm not worried about expense, I only buy the best, and if the best is expensive then so be it. It's just trying to figure out what is the best if you're going to build a system around SWG.

I noticed you have the sand filter. Is that advised with the Salt system verses a cartridge? Again dollars not an issue what is best.

There is a thread somewhere on here that shows little difference in the water chemistry when using a sand filter or a cartridge, combined with an SWG. For clarity/fine particle filtration purposes, you might prefer a cartridge, but then again, you might not notice a difference. Lots of folks on here have a sand/swg combo and are very satisfied. Cartridge owners will praise cartridge and swear by them, as will sand owners.