Not sure where to put this. I'm sure someone will move it if need be.

A friend is thinking about going with a freshwater pool. I read up some of what is provided on their sites but it doesn't look to me like it has a disinfectant. Tell me what you know and what you think.

some links

http://www.ecleartechnologies.com/index.html
http://nochemicalpool.com/
http://www.enviroswim.com/us/
http://www.ecosmarte.com.au/barramundi/index.htm

It doesn't have any residual disinfectant in the pool water and it's a lie when they imply it can be used in commercial/public pools in Australia. As shown here, the only registered pool sanitizing products in Australia are chlorine, bromine, Baquacil and hydrogen peroxide (the latter is not allowed in the U.S. in commercial/public pools as it does not pass EPA DIS/TSS-12). It's registered use in Australia is as a supplemental system, not a primary one. This is similar to UV and ozone systems.

There are no laws or regulations requiring residential pools to be sanitized. There are only laws about product labeling and for commercial/public pools. You can swim in raw sewage as far as the government is concerned. It's your pool and your life and you can do whatever you want with it.

If one wanted to truly go chlorine/bromine-free in a residential pool, then they would be better off at least with something in the residual water, most likely copper/silver ions so that algae growth can be prevented as well as having something to prevent uncontrolled bacterial growth. However, metal ions can cause staining, tint blond hair green, and are not as fast at killing pathogens as chlorine, bromine, Baquacil. They generally do not inactivate viruses. It's a spectrum of risk, but would be better than having only an oxidizer system in the circulation path which is what your links showed.

All four of those systems appear to use copper, and the third and fourth ones also mentions silver. The first three also appear to use electronically produced oxygen as an oxidizer for water passing through the cell. The usual problems with copper/silver systems all apply. The main problem, as chem geek already pointed out, is the lack of a residual sanitizer in the bulk pool water.

I hate to say it but your friend is buying in to the myth that chlorine is bad... and the truth is chlorine just gets a bad rap. All of the problems that can most likely be blamed on poor water chemistry - usually get blamed on chlorine - causing folks to look for "alternatives". That's too bad, I hope your friend continues to research the issue and finds out the truth.

Thanks everyone. I was thinking it was something alog the lines of ozone but I wanted to have some feed back that he could read.

Following on from the other guys, if any of the systems above had passed the APVMA tests then they would have the certificate number proudly displayed as they would be the first company to pass the very stringent Australian tests. Copper or copper/silver + zinc can only be used with chlorine, bromine, Baquacil and hydrogen peroxide, Period.
eclear, if the system worked as it should, why did they also add a UV stage?
nochemicalpool, to their credit clearly state that chlorine is employed.
enviroswim, try to make out chlorine is not used and the system out performs chlorine in log reduction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but hang on here is the lab report and it clearly states chlorine is being used http://www.enviroswim.com/us/research/pdf/tweed_lab_report.pdf
ecosmarte, there is more than enough written about that company and its nonsense.

I belive most of the systems would work as low chlorine versions and very well but the units are expensive and will require replacement electrodes so the overall cost would be way higher than TFP's BBB approach and if your friends pool is anything other than a vinyl liner pool then staining could be a big issue.
In short the difference is whether you swim in 1.5 ppm or 0.5 ppm of chlorine and is the extra price worth it.

With regards to the Enviroswim System, this is a patented system there is nothing like it on the market.
It has NSF accreditation.
With reference to the Tweed Laboratory report using chlorine in the efficacy test, if these test reports are read again you will see that there are (2) published efficacy tests. The first one was done on the ES1 System which is a basic copper and silver ioniser, which does need an oxidiser.
Please now read the efficacy tests that were done on the ES3 system there was no addition of chlorine during these tests as the Enviroswim system produces it's own ORP.
Furthermore, Enviroswim has a far superior residual disinfection in pool water than a chlorine based sanitiser due to the fact that it is not affected by heat nor ultra violet light (sunlight).
So much so that Enviroswim systems do not require the addition of cyanuric acid, please take a few minutes and google this chemical.
And to close Enviroswim is used in many commercial pools all over the world as well as domestic pools in every continent.

Really, Dr Dryden of Dryden aqua also uses ultrasonic vibrators to generate a high REDOX potential is his samples but it doesn't answer the residual in the pool question does it as the ultrasonic waves soon disipate their energy and then you are left with what exactly?
Really interested as I have some friends in Australia who really could use a new sanitiser that meets the criteria so they can put their business back into action after they all closed up when the APMVA tested the products being sold.

Ah, all the usual misleading tactics so common in the copper/silver ionizer market. Patented means nothing, anything unique can be patented even if it is completely useless. NSF certification means it does something reliably, in this case prevent algae. That doesn't make it suitable for use as a sanitizer. Enviroswim's APVMA registration is again for use in preventing algae, not for use as a sanitizer. Mentioning heat, ultra violet, and cyanuric acid are simply a misdirection, as none of these are significant problems for chlorine systems, they just sound technical and vaguely scary. And, as always, levels of copper/silver that are effective against algae are above the threshold for causing unsightly and expensive to remove metals stains.

In the US only three products are approves as sanitizers and the Enviroswim ES3 doesn't use any of them, so it is not suitable for use as a sanitizer in the US. I am much less familiar with Australian regulations, but they don't appear to be approved as a sanitizer there either.

Jason, I have been trying to log on to the APVMA website for nearly an hour to check if they have a registration or not. Sadly getting no response from the web site and its very early morning here in UK so it will have to wait unless Ricisking comes back with his proof of APVMA registration as a sanitiser we will have to wait and see. Dryden aqua were having some success in this area but they are not there yet and I cannot afford their ultrasonic and static mixer combo nor would I for a domestic pool, always interested though.

This link is to the APVMA website listing all registered pool sanitising products looking at products starting with "E" and gee, Enviroswim isn't listed. What a surprise, eh? Every single product listed contains either chlorine, bromine, baquacil or hydrogen peroxide. The latter is approved in Australia, but not by the EPA in the U.S.

ricisking, if you are in the industry or working for or selling Enviroswim, then you need to disclose that in your signature.

And a whole lot more!

Thanks Richard, it was getting very early and sleep was well overdue

With regards to Enviroswim, no lies no misleading statements only facts.
Yes Enviroswim is patented, this is to prevent copying and to protect I.P.
The Enviroswim ES3 system has definitely met all registration requirements for NSF STANDARD 50 and is complying with UL 1081 and all complying requirements thus can be used in any domestic or commercial swimming pool or spa in the U.S.A.
With reference to the APVMA in Australia, they made every company in Australia that were selling any type of ionisation system register there rods as a chemical. (METAL RODS AS A CHEMICAL?). There is not one (1) salt water chlorinator registered with the APVMA in Australia. Whilst you have an inefficient machine (salt water chlorinator) producing an inefficient sanitiser (chlorine). No testing on the performance or efficacy of these devises is required by the APVMA.
If you are able to take a few minutes to read the N.ATA. Govt laboratory reports on the efficacy of the Enviroswim ES3 System on the Enviroswim web site you will be able to see the efficacy of this system.
No lies, no misleading statements only independent accredited third party credential, for everybody to see!

Thanks for coming back ricisking, I am sure you realise why we are sceptical, especially as it's sold in the USA (so is Ecosmarte) can you give more information on the residual and how/where its produced. As I said above you are not the only company that is experimenting with ultrasonic/microwave sterlisation but that produces only a short life sanitising effect.

I consider the APVMA to be pretty much on the mark and registering a chemical rod (copper and or silver and zinc is perfectly understandably) to me as they are touted as the killing part of so many systems. Titanium plates on the other hand are only there to produce chlorine which we all know about hence no registration required, again perfectly understandable.

If you cannot answer I will start emailing the company for more information.

For any sanitiser to be registrable there must be a measurable residual disinfectant in the pool water, also this sanitiser has to be easy to measure at pool side. Enviroswim has two easy residual measurables, Ion level and O.R.P. (REDOX).
Furthermore because the (2) residual sanitisers complement each other, the combined residual disinfection is far in excess of a chlorine based system, without the need for cyanuric acid ( stabiliser). Also Enviroswim's residual sanitiser is not affected by heat nor U.V. (Contrary to a previous post these are the main dissipaters in hot sunny climates for chlorine) There for the residual disinfection in an Enviroswim pool is extremely stable and lasts for a considerable time as compared to chlorine pools.
If comparing to a salt water chlorinator pool this would results in a far shorter run time on the Enviroswim pools with a far more stable operation, anything between 25% and with some pools up to 50% less run time. This makes operation of an Enviroswim pool far less expensive on power for your pool pumps, they last a lot longer as well.
Also when chlorine is added to a pool or manufactured in a chlorinator, the pool water's PH is increased, this results in the addition of acid and then sodium bi-carbonate, to maintain water balance.
Enviroswim is PH neutral, ( is does not affect PH ), Consequently, the need to correct water balance is far far less in an Enviroswim pool.
More advantages, no stabiliser, no algaecides, no clarifiers far easier pool to look after.
Best thing about an Enviroswim pool the quality of the water you will be swimming in, as close as you can get to a mountain stream in your back yard.

As we are bound by the law of physics you are actually only producing a ORP whilst the unit is operating and a short time afterwards for the residual, once the water molecules have bumped into each other violently enough to shear an electron in order to create the ORP and then flow out into the pool they will slow down and quickly gain the lost electron back into the stable water we all know so where is the residual other than the metal ions? unless the unit is run 24/7 you will have only a slow acting copper/silver ion to keep bacteria etc down and as bacteria can multiply quicker than copper/silver can kill there is a potential problem.

What is your answer to this?

There are now thousands of Enviroswim ES3 systems successfully working in swimming pools all over the World in commercial and residential installations. These customers are the products best advertisement.
As I said earlier all the Enviroswim systems credentials are on the Enviroswim web site to see, are you disagreeing with the N.S.F and Govt N.A.T.A. laboratories with the efficacy of the Enviroswim system?

No I am not disagreeing with the test but a test is not real world and thousands of e-clear and ecosmarte units as well as poolfrogs around the world are no testament to me and many other, the laws of physics do not bend to suit retail, proof that is what I need

This is a misleading statement. Yes, it probably can be used on a commercial pool but this does not mean it can be used as a primary disinfectant. A commercial pool would also have to have a recognized disinfectant system that will maintain a chlorine or bromine residual in the pool water. This is mandated by every State and local code in the US that I am aware of.

Then what is it? Nothing anywhere says what this mysterious residual (not ion) "disinfection" agent is.

Total nonsense. You can't say anything about the pump run time without normalizing for the size of the unit. A small SWG needs a long run time. A large SWG requires a short run time. Run time is not a meaningful comparison between different technologies, only between specific units.