Phosphates.....are they worth removing??

[Patrick_B]

So what you are saying, is that we are supposed to ignore the instructions of a product the designers suggest? If it's not needed, then why would they suggest using these products for the best results?

I feel strongly that this is a very important question on more than one level. Credibility on both sides of this are at stake with that position.

 

[JoyfulNoise]

So what you are saying, is that we are supposed to ignore the instructions of a product the designers suggest? If it's not needed, then why would they suggest using these products for the best results?

I feel strongly that this is a very important question on more than one level. Credibility on both sides of this are at stake with that position.

Patrick,

Normally I would agree with you that one should follow the recommended procedure as set out by the manufacturer. But let's not forget that this is the pool industry that we are dealing with - they don't have a particularly good track record when it comes to doing what's in the best interests of the pool owner. As evidence, one need only look at the shelves full of AlkUp products which is nothing more than repackaged baking soda at 4X the price.

As for their process, well, it may be designed to create as little clouding as possible by starting off with the low dose enzyme/PR combo (which probably has a mild clarifier in it as well) and then, after some time, use the PR-10000 product to bring the [PO4] levels way down. The amount of clouding one gets is proportional to the phosphate levels that need to be dealt with. A pool with 1000ppb or less will likely experience only very mild clouding while a pool at 10,000ppb will likely be severely clouded. Bringing the [PO4] levels down slowly will likely be less shocking to the pool owner. One can certainly use their method but with greater costs involved.

It's a lot like the BioGuard "program" that some of the big chain pool stores try to sell people on. You can certainly use the BioGuard products (at inflated prices) and get a clean pool. Or, you can follow the DIY TFP method and pick & choose the chemicals you want to use. As long as you know what they are and what to expect with use, the DIY route will be a lot cheaper.

 

[Patrick_B]

It's not an attack on you at all that I give pause here Matt, and I sure don't argue some of the good points you mention about the repackaging etc. For now, let's please stick with these product uses and instruction issues we are talking about.

Your message is that these companies are willing to sell us expensive, and uneccessary products with regard to the Po4 removal process, right?

If that's the message, its one of the key arguments the opponents of Phosphate removers make to begin with. If it's true, then it says these companies are unethical, and we support that by promoting the use of any of their products. Why would we want to be part of that? It's a fair question, but not as important as the other position we are forced to take supporting this.

If TFP says that we know better how to use a product than the Chemists or Engineers who designed it simply for convenience, then we take a dangerous stance in terms of our credibility.

"Use this product, but ignore what some of the manufacturer's recommend procedures are, because we know they really aren't needed. They just sell you that stuff to make a little extra cash off of you."

How on Earth can we say that, and still maintain our credibility?

 

[MarianParoo]

I would think a pool with recurring mustard algae would be a likely candidate for phosphate removal.

 

[Saturn94]

I would think a pool with recurring mustard algae would be a likely candidate for phosphate removal.

Wasn't Ben experimenting with this before he disappeared?

 

[Patrick_B]

I would think a pool with recurring mustard algae would be a likely candidate for phosphate removal.

I know for a fact that chem geek later felt strongly it did because we had that conversation on the phone. He would be better able to explain his position on that than anyone, but it's one place I've thought there may be merit to this argument.

 

[duraleigh]

I would think a pool with recurring mustard algae would be a likely candidate for phosphate removal.

I do not think that. Why does a pool have recurring mustard algae in the first place? I can fully understand why pool operators have recurring mustard algae but not pools.

 

[duraleigh]

I have been on pool forums now for about 12 years. These two example posts were pretty common towards phosphates in 2011...

chem geek

07-27-2011, 02:46 AM​

I think you really need to look at phosphate removers in the same vein as algaecides including Polyquat, linear quats, copper ions and borates. They all inhibit algae growth, some better than others. And all are unnecessary if you maintain a proper chlorine level. However, a pool high in algae nutrients (not just phosphates, but enough nitrates to also not be limiting) will often be very reactive so that IF you let the chlorine level get too low then algae will grow faster than in a pool poor in such nutrients or in a pool with supplemental algaecides. Nevertheless, even this fastest algae growth is still limited by sunlight and temperature and is roughly 3 to 8 hours for every doubling of population, so it's not as if it turns green in front of your eyes.


So the "scam" isn't really only phosphate removers, but algaecides in general since the fact that is obscured is that chlorine alone can prevent algae growth, if one follows the chlorine/CYA relationship. That's the real scam -- not telling people that FC must be higher at higher CYA levels and that stabilized chlorine increases CYA fairly rapidly.

]waterbear

07-26-2011, 08:46 PM

​

O.K. Why would you, or why would anyone "NEED" to go through the expense and trouble of removing phosphates if high phosphate levels are "Harmless" (assuming the chlorine is good etc.)?

short answer, they don't. Before there were phosphate remover products on the market pool stores did not test for phosphates since they did not have a product to sell you based on a test results. Now they do and they push phoshphate removers since just about every pool has phosphates in it and they can make a lot of money selling you additional products in addition to copper algaecide and HEDP based sequestrants to remove the copper and then phosphate remover to remove the phosphate from the sequestrant. Pretty nice scam if you ask me!

Of course, all of you know chem geek and if you don't know waterbear, I can assure you his testing knowledge and chemistry knowledge was on a par with anyone.

Fast forward to 2016 and there are many folks who think differently than what was standard just five years ago. I can't figure out what changed people's minds? There have been no product breakthroughs that I am aware of.

Interesting to our discussions is we have jumped from the efficacy of this product to, "is it affordable?" I am still having trouble understanding that the product makes sense regardless of it's affordability.

 

[PAGirl]

If you have to add even more product to counteract what the phos. remover does (enzyme reducer/clarifier for the cloudiness) you are moving even further away from the TFP methods. As stated before, less (product) is more (money in your pocket).

No one ever answered if the phosphate remover left any type of chemicals behind. (In the aspect that chlorine leaves a bit of salt behind as it is used up.) I got one "it just disappears", just curious, as there has to be something, somewhere it leaves behind.

- - - Updated - - -

Patrick,

Normally I would agree with you that one should follow the recommended procedure as set out by the manufacturer. But let's not forget that this is the pool industry that we are dealing with - they don't have a particularly good track record when it comes to doing what's in the best interests of the pool owner. As evidence, one need only look at the shelves full of AlkUp products which is nothing more than repackaged baking soda at 4X the price.

As for their process, well, it may be designed to create as little clouding as possible by starting off with the low dose enzyme/PR combo (which probably has a mild clarifier in it as well) and then, after some time, use the PR-10000 product to bring the [PO4] levels way down. The amount of clouding one gets is proportional to the phosphate levels that need to be dealt with. A pool with 1000ppb or less will likely experience only very mild clouding while a pool at 10,000ppb will likely be severely clouded. Bringing the [PO4] levels down slowly will likely be less shocking to the pool owner. One can certainly use their method but with greater costs involved.

It's a lot like the BioGuard "program" that some of the big chain pool stores try to sell people on. You can certainly use the BioGuard products (at inflated prices) and get a clean pool. Or, you can follow the DIY TFP method and pick & choose the chemicals you want to use. As long as you know what they are and what to expect with use, the DIY route will be a lot cheaper.

From above

 

[JoyfulNoise]

I have been on pool forums now for about 12 years. These two example posts were pretty common towards phosphates in 2011...Of course, all of you know chem geek and if you don't know waterbear, I can assure you his testing knowledge and chemistry knowledge was on a par with anyone.

Fast forward to 2016 and there are many folks who think differently than what was standard just five years ago. I can't figure out what changed people's minds? There have been no product breakthroughs that I am aware of.

Interesting to our discussions is we have jumped from the efficacy of this product to, "is it affordable?" I am still having trouble understanding that the product makes sense regardless of it's affordability.

Since the current topic has strayed quite a bit and people are speculating on what chem geek and Ben Powell may or may not have discussed, this thread over at the old Pool Forum summarizes their latest thinking (as of February 2016) -

Ben's Phosphate Project

It's a discussion between chem geek and some of the active members over at the PF regarding his final communications with Ben Powell before Ben went offline. It details some of the evolution in thinking about how phosphate removers can be used in the management of pools.

If you have to add even more product to counteract what the phos. remover does (enzyme reducer/clarifier for the cloudiness) you are moving even further away from the TFP methods. As stated before, less (product) is more (money in your pocket).

No one ever answered if the phosphate remover left any type of chemicals behind. (In the aspect that chlorine leaves a bit of salt behind as it is used up.) I got one "it just disappears", just curious, as there has to be something, somewhere it leaves behind.

Phosphate removers are basically the chemical compound lanthanum chloride (LaCl3). When lanthanum chloride dissolves in pool water it almost immediately forms lanthanum carbonate which precipitates out of solution as a solid. The lanthanum carbonate then slowly reacts with phosphates and forms lanthanum phosphate, also a solid. The lanthanum carbonate and lanthanum phosphates are trapped in your pool filter. Once you backwash your filter, all of the lanthanum compounds are flushed away. So the only "stuff" left behind would be the chloride ions similar to how muriatic acid leaves chloride behind in your pool water when you adjust pH.

Lanthanum and it's compounds have no known biological role in humans. It is poorly absorbed through skin and/or oral routes.

 

[Patrick_B]

PA Girl,

It's buried in this, or one of the recent previous threads on the topic, but the remover binds with CH and Po4, which is later removed by normal filtration after its done the job. I'm over simplifying, but that's the nutshell.

In the big picture you're correct about the approach with regard to the simple tenants and philosophy of the TFPC methodology.

 

[MarianParoo]

Let's keep discussing this...

 

[Leebo]

I would think a pool with recurring mustard algae would be a likely candidate for phosphate removal.

Ok.........so then tell us. Why would phosphate removers help in a pool with mustard algae????

 

[Swampwoman]

^i think that if a poster has recurring mustard algae, slams, maintains TFP parameters, etc. and continues to have mustard algae outbreaks, it would cetainly be reasonable for them to test phosphates and consider whether its is worth the cost and effort to remove/reduce same. The measures required to prevent the mustard algae at elevated FC and the fact that the condition is less-forgiving in cases of drops in FC might make the pursuit of this path worthwhile. Sure, it would be complicated to explain But there's a reasonable chance it could make a difference, IF said phosphate level were high.

Another case would be someone using hedp whose salt cell is not producing expected levels of FC. They may have never tested for phosphates. But if their levels are high and they're having problems, its a variable they could control. But it would be extraordinarily difficult again to guide someone through this process.

Perhaps with some experimentation, some kind of advanced phosphate tutorial could be crafted to help people understand the distinction between the disingenuous phosphate hype versus real conditions where phosphate may matter/make a difference. But again, that would take some doing

Its a little bit like floc. TFP generally advises against using the approach, and deems it unnecessary but there are some conditions in swamp recovery or fine-particulate exposure where it is in practice a reasonable alternative. Situational to assess, and difficult to predict success.

 

[JoyfulNoise]

Ok.........so then tell us. Why would phosphate removers help in a pool with mustard algae????

Phosphate removal is a broad spectrum approach. Lack of nutrients affects all living things. Unlike borates which are effective algaecides only against certain types of algae (and really only at levels up near 80ppm), phosphate removal starves ALL biological pathogens of a primary nutrient needed for life.

Mustard algae can be difficult to treat with a sanitizer BUT, like all living creatures, it can not reproduce if basic nutrients are deficient.

 

[MarianParoo]

Sounds like a great reason to reduce phosphates for difficult mustard algae. Thank you, JFN.

 

[Swampwoman]

I may end up being a guinea pig for large-scale phosphate removal

Today h and I had a protracted debate about deferred and immediate maintenance plans around the compound. With the metal roof and his oddball plan of constructing an observatory story in the pool house attic, he's gone on record as not wanting to replace the liner until we "have to" since he feels it doesn't look bad and thinks we can get more than just a year out of it.

SO, I'm NOT gonna wait to switch to SWG. I'm going to buy my swg next week, plan a phosphate reduction mess sometime after an early opening, then make the switch. I'll post back to report how that one goes...could be a riot of goo!

 

[JoyfulNoise]

I may end up being a guinea pig for large-scale phosphate removal

Today h and I had a protracted debate about deferred and immediate maintenance plans around the compound. With the metal roof and his oddball plan of constructing an observatory story in the pool house attic, he's gone on record as not wanting to replace the liner until we "have to" since he feels it doesn't look bad and thinks we can get more than just a year out of it.

SO, I'm NOT gonna wait to switch to SWG. I'm going to buy my swg next week, plan a phosphate reduction mess sometime after an early opening, then make the switch. I'll post back to report how that one goes...could be a riot of goo!

+1x10^+6 on the observatory idea!!! Wife and I often dream of a spiral staircase up to the casita roof where we would mount a telescope. Tucson ROCKS for astronomy!!

Let me know if you want any advice. I'm a few days away from hitting the PR bomb, just waiting for my K1106 to arrive.

 

[Saturn94]

I may end up being a guinea pig for large-scale phosphate removal

Today h and I had a protracted debate about deferred and immediate maintenance plans around the compound. With the metal roof and his oddball plan of constructing an observatory story in the pool house attic, he's gone on record as not wanting to replace the liner until we "have to" since he feels it doesn't look bad and thinks we can get more than just a year out of it.

SO, I'm NOT gonna wait to switch to SWG. I'm going to buy my swg next week, plan a phosphate reduction mess sometime after an early opening, then make the switch. I'll post back to report how that one goes...could be a riot of goo!

Definitely keep us posted.

 

[MarianParoo]

I think I am going to try it out too. The cost benefit of going with a lower FC/CYA ratio might work out very well for MY pool. I love a good experiment!