Phosphates are the food stuff of algae

[teapot]

So how do you justify the details of your document please?

http://www.aquaclear.co.nz/swimmingpoolproducts.php?category=114

Chlorine resistant algae?

 

[JasonLion]

Thanks for all your replies, So how many of you are actually using Borax?

I starting using borates this year. Chlorine consumption has been about the same, while water clarity, "feel", and "sparkle" have improved. Never had algae since I started following the Chlorine/CYA chart, with or without borates, except for once when the power failed while I was out of town.

 

[teapot]

Thanks JasonLion,
any more information on what your chlorine consumption is?

 

[no-mas]

Thanks for all your replies, So how many of you are actually using Borax?

No need for Waterbear to reply as we know he is.

I do too - I use it to provide additional buffer against pH rise due to my SWG. Can't give you much info regarding chlorine usage, but after I increased borates to ~50ppm, and dropped my TA to 70, acid demand is down substantially. Water is consistently sparkly clear and beautiful.

 

[Guest]

No need for Waterbear to reply as we know he is.

LOL, guess he dosn't want me to play anymore!

I do too - I use it to provide additional buffer against pH rise due to my SWG. Can't give you much info regarding chlorine usage, but after I increased borates to ~50ppm, and dropped my TA to 70, acid demand is down substantially. Water is consistently sparkly clear and beautiful.

teapot,
I think you are going to find that the vase majority of people who are adding borates are doing it for pH control and not algae control.
The vast majority of people who follow our guidelines (testing the water properly to know what you need, how much you need, and when to add it) do not have algae. Algaecides, phosphate removers, and clarifiers are 'crutches' for people who do not practice proper pool care.
As an analogy, if you have a dog that makes a mess on the rug you have two option. You can spray it with deodorizer so it does not smell or you can clean up the poop and solve the problem.
Using algaecides and phosphate removers and clariifers is akin to spaying the mess with deoderizer. It temporarily masks the problem but does not get to the root of the issue (usually not enough chlorine for the CYA level in the water) or you can solve the problem by properly adjusting and maintaining the water, which in the long run is going to be much less work and expense.

 

[teapot]

No problem with your imput Waterbear, It's just we know you are using borates.

Your Crud analogy is exactly that! :-D got you there

Your comments on algae harvesting are quite interesting but thats for another day.

Hopefully some more posters will pop buy and identify if they are using borax and what sort of chlorine consumption they have.

"Algaecides, phosphate removers, and clarifiers are 'crutches' for people who do not practice proper pool care".

Can't agree there Waterbear, the fact that borax has been found to stabilise PH and an algaecide is a gift at the price of the box of mule team borax.

To use your analogy, I feel that algaecides and phosphate removers are more like the scotchguard on the rug and chlorine just help killing any potential bacteria and oxidising away the solids.

 

[Guest]

As much as i love to wasde into the debate on phosphates and lanthanum.......

There are lantanum compounds that do not require clarifiers added after application

If you are referring to either lanthanum chlorine or lanthanum sulfate, one of the first reactions that occurs is the formation of lanthanum carbonate, which is what actually scavenges the phosphates from the water. Lanthanum carbonate clouds the water in much the same way that calcium carbonate does when you have it precipitate out. The lanthanum carbonate does precipitate out of the water where it gets caught in the filter and scavenges phosphates and becomes lanthanum phosphate. If it did not then phosphates would not be scavanged. The lanthanum phosphate is removed from the pool during normal filter cleaning. It is impossible to add a lanthanum based phosphate remover to a pool that will not cloud the water. Some phosphate removers say to pour them slowly into the skimmer so the lanthanum is caught in the filter but this only really works when the phosphate levels are low to start out with and the 'need' for a phosphate remover is dubious at best. Under normal conditions there will be some formation of lanthanum carbonate in the body of the pool and the water will cloud.

There are products that are alum, actually aluminum sulfate (for example, Natural Chemitry's PhosFloc
http://naturalchemistry.com/admin/media ... object/778
http://naturalchemistry.com/pool-and-sp ... ription/11)
designed as floc to quickly remove high levels of phosphates but the ability to vacuum to waste is requred. Funny thing is, plain old ordinary floc is also aluminum sulfate and often MUCH less expensive!
http://secure.poolcenter.com/prodinfo.a ... =152897713
http://secure.poolcenter.com/prodinfo.a ... =143560138
IF you read the MSDS for PhosFloc and the description for the Nu-clo Flock aluminum sulfate and then look at the prices you get my point.
Both of these products are coming from the same online retailer so it is the manufacturers that are setting the price on what is a a very inexpensive chemical!
http://www.chemistrystore.com/cart.cgi? ... hild=49900
Is there a profit motive here? You tell me.

 

[Guest]

No problem with your imput Waterbear, It's just we know you are using borates.

Your **** analogy is exactly that! :-D got you there
Explain how please. If you make such a statement please back it up.

I think a more valid question for you to ask is not about borates but about how many are using clarifers, algaecides, and phosphate removers on a regular basis. I think you will find the answer enlightening.

"Algaecides, phosphate removers, and clarifiers are 'crutches' for people who do not practice proper pool care".

Can't agree there Waterbear, the fact that borax has been found to stabilise PH and an algaecide is a gift at the price of the box of mule team borax.
Borax is not a 'crutch' when used as a buffer for pH control any more than baking soda, muriatic acid, or soda ash. It's algaestatic properties are an extra, much like chitosan based clarifers also do chelate metals but they are not used as metal sequesterants. It is a secondary effect.

To use your analogy, I feel that algaecides and phosphate removers are more like the scotchguard on the rug and chlorine just help killing any potential bacteria and oxidising away the solids.

A better solution would be to clean the rug (get the water balance and chlorine levels where they are supposed to be) and train the dog not to poop on the rug to prevent further problems (maintain the pool properly). Don't you agree?

 

[teapot]

No you get me wrong, we approach the problems in different ways. I have no interest in those, far more interest in borax as we dicussed via pm all the plus points without the potential problems of copper based when used with chlorine.

Your **** analogy is exactly that! got you there
Explain how please. If you make such a statement please back it up.

That was a joke! you made an analogy about dog poo?

"A better solution would be to clean the rug (get the water balance and chlorine levels where they are supposed to be) and train the dog not to poop on the rug to prevent further problems (maintain the pool properly). Don't you agree?"

Sure but we balance our water differently thats what started this dicussion off and don't blame it was your dog! (that is another joke)

 

[Guest]

No you get me wrong, we approach the problems in different ways. I have no interest in those, far more interest in borax as we dicussed via pm all the plus points without the potential problems of copper based when used with chlorine.

Your **** analogy is exactly that! got you there
Explain how please. If you make such a statement please back it up.

That was a joke! you made an analogy about dog poo?

Yes, and you said my analogy was poo. My analogy hold. I guess you used an attempt at humor because you didn't have a better answer.

 

[JasonLion]

I use about 0.75 ppm of chlorine a day in mid-summer to maintain FC between 4 and 5. I have a SWG and the math is a bit complex to figure out ppm/day, so I could be off a little. I have not used algaecide, phosphate remover, or clarifier in years (since I first learned about BBB).

 

[teapot]

Thanks JasonLion, very informative and good figures.

 

[Guest]

Just to clarify for others that were not privy to our PMs I am posting them here to aid in the discussion.
there are three of them and I am posting them in order recieved and answered:

Subject: Where did my CYA go? Help with CC.

Your copper is at the low end for algae control (.3- .6 ppm) and high enough to stain or turn hair green. It means that you have to add seqestrant on a regular basis and be very careful NOT to let your pH rise above about 7.8 EVER. I suspect that your actual copper level is a bit higher than .3 ppm.
If draining is the only way out, let us know and we will start today.

Hi Waterbear, interested in your comment above regarding copper. I have realised there is almost a paranoid belief of the TFP forum about copper staining. Have you any documents/info relating to copper staining and the concentration required to turn hair green or stain liners?

Regards
John

I have seen it happen with copper levels as low as .3 ppm in customers pools time and again. Realize that in the "old days" the idea WAS to stain a pool with copper sulfate to prevent algae growth. The hope was that the staining would be blue and make an even stain on the plaster but what eventually happens over time is the blue copper stain oxidized to the black copper stain that can only really be removed by acid washing.
I also happen to be a licensed Barber and Cosmetologists (since the 70's) and have taught both vocations in the past. I have dealt with more than my share of green hair from copper (I was a colorist in the salons I worked in and owened) and actually know the proper way to eliminate it (much like metal stains are treated in pools) with sodium thiosulfate (chlorine neitralizer) and citric acid (reducing agent). These are the very same chemicals used in pools for these same purposes, btw.

All that being said I will say that copper sulfate is the only product sold as an algaecide that will actually KILL an active algae bloom and not just inhibit it's growth (except for the halogens like chlorine and bromine). The biggest problem with copper is that it is forever once in the water. It can be sequestered but seqesterant break down over time and need to be re added on a regular, often weekly, basis. It only takes one pH spike to stain a pool and pH spikes happen even under the best conditions, particularly when pools are closed.
the first time you use copper it often works great so you are tempted to use it again. This is where problems occur. If you are monitoring copper levels and they drop (and you have not sequestered them) then the copper has come out of the water as stain either somewhere in your pool, plumbing and equipment, or on someones hair. If the copper is still in your pool it can and will redissolve in the water when the pH drops, such as might occur when lowering TA or if you use trichlor for chlorination. I have soon too many pool with copper levels well over 1 ppm strictly from regular ( as instructed on the bottle) use of chelated copper algaecides.
Manufacturers and distributors love copper because coppper sulfate is cheap (VERY high profits), has it's own EPA registration so products they use it in have a registration number, and it works fairly well with just one or two applications so the customer if likely to buy it over and over again.
Customers like it because it's "magic in a bottle". Pour it in and the algae dies in a few days. Staining usually does not happen until so much time has passed that the average pool owner does not equate the stains in their pool to the algaecide that they used when they closed last season.
Pool surfact plays in here too. With plaster pools copper stains can be removed by acid washing. Fiberglass usually stains black and the stains are very difficult to remove in most cases. Vinyl liners that stain are ruined and need to be replaced if you want the stains gone.
Copper stains, period. If the level is high enough to kill algae, it's high enough to stain.

I understand that you use an ionizer. If you are not maintaining at least a 2 ppm chlorine residual you do NOT have sanigtized water. The APVMA has basically outlawed ionizers in Australia as stand alone sanitizers, since they are not. (The first two deal specifically with the Zodiac Nature 2 but if your search their site you will find many other ionizer devices have also been recalled and/or banned.)
http://www.apvma.gov.au/archive/gazette0403p14.shtml

http://www.apvma.gov.au/archive/gazette0406p26.shtml

http://www.apvma.gov.au/media/mr0401.shtml

http://www.apvma.gov.au/qa/poolspa_FAQ_May2005.shtml
The EPA in the US does require a minimum residual fast acting santizer requirement with ionizers and they cannot be sold as 'chlorine free' any moresince CT times for copper and silver are very slow. Yet the minimum level required is too low in most real life cases. Because both copper and silver (and zinc for that matter, which is used in some devices instead of copper) are effective algaecides people are lured into a false sense of security because their water is clear. Clear water is not pathogen free water.

The second:

Hi Waterbear,
Thanks for your detailed answer, yes as you see from my signature I am using the aquabrite ioniser and keep the copper level to 0.6ppm very strictly (their unit does make this easy as it offers a lot of controll on current and time) Well aware of the need to use sanitiser, currently using MPS.
MPS is not a sanitizer, simply an oxidizer and this comes from the manufacturer that developed it, DuPont.

This setup has been in use for 4 years now without staining. I believe the chlorine copper compounds are partly responsable together with the ph variation for any staining but with MPS this does not seem to occur.
Once again, MPS is NOT a sanitizer!
Very well aware of the Austalian court cases, I made a very detailed research into the whole problem and outcomes.
It was not a fair playing field! Two of the companies I contacted new only too well the need for additional sanitiser and market the sytems correctly in that way, but the systems were not tested under that condition. The tests were separated so neither the copper/silver or straight copper would pass as a sanitiser or MPS. There was considerable commercial bias as the board was composed of commercial chlorine producers.

Several of the companies did not have the finance to continue after being threatened with recall, fortunately the bigger ones did and fought the case via independant laboratories using the whole system (ioniser and sanitiser together as intended) and they won through.
However you are totally overlooking CT values. In a closed system such as water purification for drinking CT values are not as sginificant and non residual sanitizers such as UV and ozone are effective also. However, a pool or spa is not a closed system. Every bather introduces swear, urine, and feces in the water. There can also be contamination from such things as bird droppings or wild and domestic animals. The need for full, efective levels of a FAST ACTING residual sanitizer (and once again, MPS is not a sanitizer) is necessary.
Other plus's from copper/silver are the removal of biofilm from pipes and filters so preventing bacteria and algae having anywhere to hide although the system is not suitable for zeolite filters as they tend to filter out the metals. Also it improves the performance of the sanitisers as there are a number of of common bacteria that chlorine is poor at dealing with.
Regards
John

Realize that I base my views on facts that I have been privy to while working in the industry both in the pool maintenance end and the wholesale/retail end from many sources and my own experience. As a licensed Barber and Cosmetologist and former instructor in both vocations and many years as a colorist I have also corrected copper green hair many more times that I ever should have had to.
Let us just leave it at that I will never swim in your pool and when you start having problems (because you will) you will remember me. I really do not care to debate the matter further since I KNOW my facts and have seen the results of what ionizers do first hand and have had to deal with the aftermath.
It has been said many times that you can lead a horse to water. . .
I have lead all that I am going to.
Excuse me if this seems rude but I have had this conversation too many times and it's always ended with me being in the situation of being able to say "I told you so."
It's gotten old.

The third:

Wow, why the attitude.
Sorry if you perceive that , but I have been through this discussion too many times and personally I am tired of it. Once upon a time I thought that ions might be the answer but the drawbacks outnumber the benefits. I do not want to 'debate' the benefits of ioniaztion since there really are none. Case closed. If you care to discuss any other aspects of pool care I am open.

FYI I am industry, I build and maintain too, saltwater and chlorine. The ioniser is a personal experiment on my own pool. So much of what is written is bull and following my personal interest in alternative sanitisation methods (Yes I am aware that MPS is an oxidiser) the whole system is a sanitiser.

MPS by it self would give rise to a dangerous pool, however in combination with copper and silver it is quite formidable on both algae and bacteria and pathogens.
Only at the temperatures commonly found in spas, not at normal pool temps.

The test is not FC or anything else, the test is my pool water being sent off for a bacterial analysis at a lab. The results from last years test were very good, I will have another test done in September and I will be happy to post and share the results.
Which is NOT how CT tests are done when sanitizers are being tested. If the pool has not been used for a while even non residual santizers lke UV and Ozone can produce satisfactory water but it falls apart in real life conditions. If it did not then there would be a lot more alternative sanitizers in use. the reason there are not is the fact is that they just do not work in real life conditions as well as halogens (and I even include biguanide in this list of alternative sanitizer since it 'self destruts' after a few years of continuous use in a very large numbers of cases.)

If it did not work and I was expecting it not to like the pseudo science of Ecosmarte it would have been removed and junked!
Copper, silver, and/or zinc ionization is not new tachnology by any stretch of the imagination. IF it worked as claimed without the inherent problems that eventually happen it would be in much more common usage worldwide.
The fact that you use far more chlorine ppm on this forum and yet there are still problems proves that chlorine is not 100% in all cases hence the need to add borax.
The problems that are evident in the forum are from new members that come here that have NOT been properly caring for pools. For the vast majority of them they don't even test their water and have pools with WAY too much CYA. The chlorine/CYA interaction was well known in the 60's when chlorinated isocyanurates were first introduced but it was 'ovelooked' by the manufacturers since this small drawback would cut into their profit margin. (NOT unlike some of the drawbacks that are overlooked by the ionizer manufacturers.)

As far as borates go, I was extremely skeptical until I started an experiment in my own pool. (Realize that the original tests and test pools from Proteam and John Girvan Company that the first patents came from,before he sold his company to Haviland, were done here in St. Augustine and Jacksonville, FL.)The results far exceeded my expectations! When the same results were reported by others in another forum (this is before TFP existed, btw) I started recommending it ot my customers with exactly the same results. If there ever was a 'wonder chemical' introduced into the pool industry, IMHO, it would be borates. They work!

We treat our problems in different ways that is how we learn, on your forum you ignore phosphates, that to us is laughable. Phosphates are the food of algae and bacteria, restrict this food supply and you restrict the growth of algae and bacteria. No food no growth that is so basic.
Phospahtes are only one algae food, you cannot ignore nitrates (and some of the other nitrogeneous compounds found in pool water). However nitrates are not commonly tested for in pools because there is no "magic in a bottle" we can add to reduce or eliminate nitrates. Only water replacement can lower nitrates and we cannot sell that in a bottle.
Also, as someone who has used both Lanthanum Chloride/Lanthanum Sulfate phosphate removers and borax in pools I can tell you it is MUCH easier to use borates than lanthanum products. NO clouding of the water, NO repeated application, NO repeated filter cleaning. MUCH lower overall expense. Even without borates, phosphates are inconsequential if proper FC levels are kept and water is tested on a regular basis. (HOw in the world did we ever keep a swimming pool before lanthanum products hit the market? If you read the advertising hype it was impossible yet we did and we also used TSP as a floc which raises orthophosphate levels very high!) Phosphate removers really only benefit those that sell them. They are not needed for the average pool owner.
There are much more cost effective and easier ways of dealing with high orthophosphate levels, such as proper pooll testing and water balancing! If you are in the business you know that you cannot ignore a pool and expect it NOT to have problems (however, with borates in the water you almost can. Here is a personal story. Last summer I went away on vacation in August for 12 days. The night before I left I shocked to 20 ppm with sodium hypochlorite with a CYA level of 80 ppm and a SWG. I shut the pool off the next morning before I left since I do not have an autofill and the evaporation rates are very high. I did not want to chance a burned out pump because my water level dropped. I expected to return to a green pool, which is not that big a deal to me since I know how to fix that quickly. My orthophosphates were over 3000 ppb at the time. I do test for them just to see if I ever reach a critical level here in FL. Nitrates 0 ppm, btw. At any rate, when I returned 12 days later (actually 13 because I got in at night and did not look at the pool until the next day after work which, at that time was caring for 2 pools 65k and 55k gallons, 2 spa 1k gallons each, and 1 splash zone 1 k gallons at a commercial facility). At any rate, the pool was clear. NO chlorine at all, but totally clear. I shocked it again to 20 ppm after turningon the system and was back in business. THAT is the one thing that really convinced me that borates are effective algaestats. The temperatures here were in the high 90's and my pool gets full (tropical) sun.
Borates are by no means necessary but they are a water additive that actually works and is not that expensive.
Richard said you are a good guy whether or not you want to discuss pools will answer that question.

I do like to discuss pools but I have no desire to beat a dead horse. I have limited time to spend here and I feel it is better spend IN the forum helping members solve any pool problems they might have with cost effective methods that we KNOW work every time with the fewest drawbacks and helping them learn how to better maintain their pool on their own. Do you not agree?

Like I said in the last post:

I have limited time to spend here and I feel it is better spend IN the forum helping members solve any pool problems they might have with cost effective methods that we KNOW work every time with the fewest drawbacks and helping them learn how to better maintain their pool on their own. Do you not agree?

However, this thread has just become a continuation of the PMs, IMHO.

 

[Guest]

So how do you justify the details of your document please?

http://www.aquaclear.co.nz/swimmingpoolproducts.php?category=114

Chlorine resistant algae?

Marketing literature from Lo-chlor. The line is also here in the U.S. from Team Horner (AutoPilot SWGs and Aauacal heaters are also part of Team Horner). Pretty much the same B S you get from every manufacturer's marketing literature.
(from the US Lo-Chlor site): http://www.lo-chlor.com/faq.php
http://www.halosource.com/userfiles/Pho ... 062209.pdf
http://naturalchemistry.com/pool-and-sp ... cts/show/8
and finally, gotta love this video from Orenda Tech. (I have conversed with Richard Kersey, president of the company, on several occasions by email and he used to be a moderator on the Poolcenter forum. He used to make statements in the forum repeated that phosphates destroy chlorine and that it was not just chlorine being consumed by nascent algae. Both chemgeek and myself asked him repeatedly to please explain the chmical pathway by which this happened. He never did.)
There is so much chemistry misinformation in this video that I don't know where to start!
http://www.orendatech.com/videoplayer.html
I will say that Richard Kersey does have an excellent knowledge of pool chemistry. A very knowable man indeed and I have enjoyed the email discussion I had with him. I also have had the pleasure of meeting his ex associate who now runs Water Technologies.
They developed the CYA reducer that was on the market for a while but seems to have disappeared pretty much. Right from the horses mouth at a Water Technologies seminar I was told that it was not effective if you needed to lower the CYA by more than about 20 ppm and if you did to drain andn refill but the marketing literature for that product says nothing about that! Go figure!

 

[Beez]

Hopefully some more posters will pop buy and identify if they are using borax and what sort of chlorine consumption they have.

I added borates to my pool this year. My daily chlorine demand is approximately 1ppm/day, however, I base that on the FC/CYA chart so I'm not sure this info will satisfy your curiosity about borates and chlorine consumption.

In other words, I've never let my FC dip below the min so I can't speak for the algaestatic properties of the borates.

 

[reebok]

Thanks for all your replies, So how many of you are actually using Borax?

judging from subsequent posts, I assume you are talking about adding 50ppm borates, not borax for raising ph. if that's the case, I have my numbers listed below. unfortunately I don't have many numbers pre-borates.

before borates, from 5-8-09 to 5-23-09, I used 800oz of 10.5% chlorine. I added borates on 5-24-09 using 20 mule team borax and waterbear's instructions. from 5-25-09 to 7-28-09 I used 1472oz.

I keep my FC at 8ppm with a cya of 70.

 

[Aquaclear-NZ]

So how do you justify the details of your document please?

http://www.aquaclear.co.nz/swimmingpoolproducts.php?category=114

Chlorine resistant algae?

Marketing literature from Lo-chlor. The line is also here in the U.S. from Team Horner (AutoPilot SWGs and Aauacal heaters are also part of Team Horner). Pretty much the same B S you get from every manufacturer's marketing literature.
(from the US Lo-Chlor site): http://www.lo-chlor.com/faq.php
http://www.halosource.com/userfiles/Pho ... 062209.pdf
http://naturalchemistry.com/pool-and-sp ... cts/show/8
and finally, gotta love this video from Orenda Tech. (I have conversed with Richard Kersey, president of the company, on several occasions by email and he used to be a moderator on the Poolcenter forum. He used to make statements in the forum repeated that phosphates destroy chlorine and that it was not just chlorine being consumed by nascent algae. Both chemgeek and myself asked him repeatedly to please explain the chmical pathway by which this happened. He never did.)
There is so much chemistry misinformation in this video that I don't know where to start!
http://www.orendatech.com/videoplayer.html
I will say that Richard Kersey does have an excellent knowledge of pool chemistry. A very knowable man indeed and I have enjoyed the email discussion I had with him. I also have had the pleasure of meeting his ex associate who now runs Water Technologies.
They developed the CYA reducer that was on the market for a while but seems to have disappeared pretty much. Right from the horses mouth at a Water Technologies seminar I was told that it was not effective if you needed to lower the CYA by more than about 20 ppm and if you did to drain andn refill but the marketing literature for that product says nothing about that! Go figure!

It is marketing material from lo-chlor, has been on our website for around 5 years

Lo-chlor source the lanthanum from the usual supplier, however they have added secret herbs and spices and patented this in australia, it does not cause cloudy water when added, why i dont know, i am certainly nowhere near the chemical expert you 2 are. i have seen it used first hand personally and is one of our biggest selling products. The market is now flooded with similar products from the same raw source, and a comment i often get is that while they are usually cheaper, the water does require a clarifier. So im quite happy selling one product to do the job, not adding a second product to fix the mess from the first one.

again its a great algae insurance, as the percentage of people who actually do know, or for that matter want to know, how to keep their pool pristene through use of regular (at least daily) testing and maintenance is very low

 

[chem geek]

Personally, I think that phosphate removers need to be looked at in the same vein as other algae prevention alternatives such as weekly PolyQuat 60 usage or even copper-based algaecides or ionization systems. They will all prevent algae growth but all have some sort of side effect or extra cost associated with them. At least with the phosphate remover, it tends to be a larger initial dose and relatively small maintenance doses depending on how much phosphate there is in the water or in blown-in fertilized soil.

Maintaining the appropriate FC relative to CYA will prevent algae growth. So the comment about phosphate removers or other algae prevention systems being "insurance" is appropriate. That's really what it is. IF the chlorine level gets to low or to zero, then having such systems in place will (probably) prevent runaway algae growth. My own pool with 2000-3000 ppb phosphates is quite reactive -- if the chlorine gets too low for even a couple of days, the pool will cloud up with algae (or the bacteria will eat CYA as happened once). I have since (this year) added 50 ppm Borates to the pool so I will later in the year do an experiment to see if the pool is as "reactive" as it used to be. If it isn't, then I would say that 50 ppm Borates is probably the best "insurance" of all because there are virtually no side effects (except the "edge" of toxicity to dogs if they drink cups of pool water every day) and it's pretty much a one-time dose except for water dilution (i.e. splash-out, backwashing).

The key on this forum is knowledge, not so much a specific technique to follow. If one wants to use copper in their pool and has an appropriate test kit for copper and carefully manages their pH levels, then so be it. It's their pool and they can obviously manage it any way they want. As long as they understand the consequences, then that's fine. Same with phosphate removers and their cost and cloudiness when applied. There is nothing wrong with people using whatever product that they want to so long as they understand the pros/cons and are making conscience decisions. Ben (followed by others) at The PoolForum and subsequently people here promote a simpler chlorine-only approach, but it really is up to people to choose what they want to do given appropriate knowledge.

For pool services or other situations where they may not be able to add chlorine regularly and the risk of low or no chlorine is high, then phopshate removers might be a very reasonable approach. With cloudiness and cost as the only real significant side effects, it might be worth it to them. For me, I don't mind adding chlorine twice a week to my covered pool and if it turns out that the 50 ppm Borates take the "edge" off of rapid algae growth if/when I screw up, then so much the better, but I don't plan to use phosphate removers or copper and that's a personal choice.

Richard

 

[Aquaclear-NZ]

Personally, I think that phosphate removers need to be looked at in the same vein as other algae prevention alternatives such as weekly PolyQuat 60 usage or even copper-based algaecides or ionization systems. They will all prevent algae growth but all have some sort of side effect or extra cost associated with them. At least with the phosphate remover, it tends to be a larger initial dose and relatively small maintenance doses depending on how much phosphate there is in the water or in blown-in fertilized soil.

*removed the rest to make for easier reading

Richard

precisely what i was trying to say - its totally horses for courses, and like having auto insurance if you are a not so good driver

 

[Guest]

The problem is when these forms of 'insurance' are applied to pools that are not properly balanced and overstabilized, which is often the case. They then become a temporary 'fix' that does not deal with the underlying problem of why the pool is getting algae in the first place.
Unfortunately, this the the rule rather than the exception.