Ionizer

[chem geek]

My bad - 3 - 5ppm is for public pools. It's 1-3ppm for private. Thanks for catching that.

That's still not true -- the rule is NOT 3-5 ppm for public pools. Where are you getting your information? Are you just making these things up? In the future, please provide references to sources so we don't waste our time correcting this misinformation.

The EPA requires that swimming pool (and spa) disinfectants pass EPA DIS/TSS-12 and the performance standard for the laboratory test uses a 0.4 ppm FC at pH 7.5 chlorine (with no CYA) reference. All chlorine products that have gone through this do so with 1 ppm FC minimum so that is what is on the labels (except for the NSF Standard 50 "Copper/Silver and Copper Ion Generators" that require 0.4 ppm FC). The EPA has a drinking water limit of 4 ppm FC and that also limits what can be put on chlorine product labels -- again, NOT 5 ppm. However, it is state codes that regulate commercial/private pools and as I describe in this post the maximum FC varies by state up to 10 ppm in Florida (where many pools are outdoors using CYA in hot sun) while the minimum is (again) 1 ppm for swimming pools and in some states it's 2 ppm for spas. You can look at all U.S. state pool codes via this link.

Also, even for Health Canada, this document for British Columbia shows a lower limit of 0.5 ppm with no CYA or 1.0 ppm with CYA for pools (<= 30ºC) while spas (> 30ºC) need 1.5 ppm FC with no CYA or 2.0 ppm FC with CYA. Again, NOT 3.0 ppm minimum. Note that there is NO exception allowed for lowering these minimums further by using copper ions in the water. The same is true for this document for Toronto with 0.5 ppm FC minimum with no CYA and 1.0 ppm FC minimum with CYA with NO exceptions for copper.

Also, even though you are a VP for Sales & Marketing for Argenia Systems, your Google+ page touts the ClearBlue ionizer and on Disqus you also refer to Del Ozone. Again, while it's nice for you to share your personal experiences with a system, you should not ignore the numerous problems people have with ionizer systems causing staining or other issues. One should not project one's own personal experience onto others whose situations may be quite different.

[EDIT] According to this post on another forum, you "represent an ionizer manufacturer". Those in the industry should identify themselves as such. Argenia Systems has not only the railway safety and signaling technology but also the ClearBlue Ionizer™. In this post you refer to ClearBlue being "your wife's company" and you apparently went to work for it in January. That would have been good to know since those with a financial interest in promoting a product have the potential to be biased. I do not work in the pool/spa industry -- I am a residential pool owner. [END-EDIT]

 

[Michael Assad]

Agreed - ionizers are not a great solution for everyone. But they are a great solution for some. This forum (and the Pool Spa Forum) lean way to far away from them. You need to read up on the latest models.

The dangers of chlorine and other pool chemicals are clear and indisputable. Of course they are safe if they are handled correctly, but there is still danger.

Similarly, there is danger of staining with cheap ionizers on certain types of pools.

However, there are ionizers on the market that do not cause staining and have never caused staining. With these products, the pool maintenance IS easier and you use LESS chemicals. There are many people who use these products and love them.

You have your way of maintaining pools and that's great. But it's not the only way, and in my opinion, not the best way.

As I have admitted from my first post, my wife and father-in-law own a company that makes an ionizer. I am working there part time after selling my business. They have been selling it for 10 years and no one has ever complained of staining or anything else. Rather, they sing the praises.

For the record, there are no multi-national mega-corps selling ionizers. They are all small family businesses. I certainly haven't invested money in them, and I can pretty much guarantee that no one is getting rich from promoting ionizers on this forum

 

[Michael Assad]

Also, even for Health Canada, this document for British Columbia shows a lower limit of 0.5 ppm with no CYA or 1.0 ppm with CYA for pools (<= 30ºC) while spas (> 30ºC) need 1.5 ppm FC with no CYA or 2.0 ppm FC with CYA. Again, NOT 3.0 ppm minimum. Note that there is NO exception allowed for lowering these minimums further by using copper ions in the water. The same is true for this document for Toronto with 0.5 ppm FC minimum with no CYA and 1.0 ppm FC minimum with CYA with NO exceptions for copper.

Here is the official label from Health Canada - as you can see on page 2, they recommend that you maintain '0.6 to 3 ppm of chlorine in pool water' and '3 to 5ppm of chlorine in spa waters'.

http://pr-rp.hc-sc.gc.ca/1_1/view_label?p_ukid=47834860

My understanding was that EPA was 0.5 to 3ppm with an ionizer but I can't find it. If you think it's easy, go try it - the EPA site is a mess! I was told this by someone in the industry and it has stuck with me.

 

[JohnT]

Here's what Australia thinks of them http://test.apvma.gov.au/use_safely/pool/background.php

No reason to add an extra expensive and potentially problematic system to a chlorine pool, when a properly maintained chlorine pool gives exactly the same protection from pathogens as a chlorine pool with an ionizer. When Chlorine + Ionizer = Chlorine, it's clear the ionizer adds nothing to a pool but potential problems and expense at best, and at worst it can mask insufficient sanitation by suppressing algae growth.

 

[JVTrain]

Note that all this praise of ionizers comes from someone who either directly or indirectly will benefit from the success of ionizer sales. Moderators, experts, contributors to this forum gain nothing other than helping other pool owners. A few folks here such as Dave (duraleigh) and others can benefit from test kit sales but there are other sources of those supplies and the bulk of expense for TFP methods goes to whatever stores or sources each user chooses.

The other aspect missing from this ionizer specifications is the relationship between CYA and chlorine. Without CYA in the pool, you'll have a hard time maintaining 0.5 - 3 FC consistently. In fact at 0 CYA which indeed if following the ionizer guidelines would certainly be acceptable, you'd go through a lot more bleach/chlorine to keep at 1-3 FC consistently than if you would have a CYA at 30. Following ionizer guidelines blindly without CYA could cost MORE than proper CYA/Chlorine management. I'm still failing to see the advantages of spending more and getting less, at best.

 

[JohnT]

Note that this is coming from the moderator of the forum who has set the tone for this community.

An ionizer allows you to lower the concentration of chlorine by 50 - 90% without affecting the safety or clarity of the water. Read the link in my post. You cannot reduce the chlorine level in a pool because you are putting metal in the water.

I asked you in response to one of the first posts you made here to compare the kill time for coliform bacteria for metals vs. chlorine. You won't do it.If you want to reduce the effects of harmful chlorine on yourself and your children it is worth a look. The expense is offset by the lowered expenses of chlorine and other chemicals.

Problems WILL come with cheaper ionizers - beware.

Otherwise, there is a long history of satisfied customers who tried something different and were rewarded.

There is no such thing as a cheaper ionizer. They all work the same way and do exactly the same thing. That is they add metal to the water with no analysis of the current level of metal in the water.

Here is what the WHO says about ionizers:

"The demand for fast biocidal action – to ensure that an infection of swimmers by transmission of bacteria and viruses via pool water does not occur even when the pool is used in rapid succession by large numbers of bathers – rules out the use of silver or other heavy metals for pool water disinfection, because a long exposure period (several hours) is required for these substances to show a biocidal effect. A quick, sensitive, analytical field procedure for measuring low concentrations of silver is not available.”

And the German government:

“Silver-copper compounds, mentioned by the press as alternatives to chlorination, may not be seriously considered for use in public swimming pools. They take effect too slowly. According to DIN 19643, the disinfectant must reduce the concentration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by four decimal powers within 30 seconds. Silver-copper compounds take an hour or more for this. What is more, they do not have the necessary disinfectant capacity.”

Now on to scentific journals:

1994. Abad, Pinto, Diez & Bosch. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol 60, pp 2377-2383.

"The use of copper and silver ions in water systems may not provide a reliable alternative to high levels of free chlorine for the disinfection of viral pathogens."

"Virus aggregates (which tend to protect viruses from contact with a disinfectant) were seen in the presence of silver and copper ions but not with free chlorine alone."

"Addition of 700:70 ppb of copper:silver did not enhance the inactivation rates of 0.5 and 0.2 ppm of free chlorine, although on some occasions, it had a similar efficacy to high levels of free chlorine alone."

1993. Bosch, Diez & Abad. Water Science Technology, vol 27, pp 351-356.

"Overall, addition of 700:70 ppb of copper:silver did not enhance the inactivation rates of 0.5 and 0.2 ppm of free chlorine. (Statistical analysis showed that combined copper:silver and free chlorine were not significantly more effective than free chlorine alone.)"

And finally, the conclusion of the Australian government:

"The weight of evidence examined so far indicates that silver ions or silver and copper ions together are not effective sanitisers for pools and spas and do not provide a sufficiently enhanced biocidal activity to chlorine to allow reduced levels of chlorine to be used safely."


Now lets have some scientific references showing that ionizers accomplish anything other than putting money in the pockets of the manufacturers and staining.

An ionizer allows you to lower the concentration of chlorine by 50 - 90% without affecting the safety or clarity of the water.

Then back it up with hard data. Where is your data? I posted scientific journal articles refuting your claim. If it is true, you should have no trouble finding documents to support it.

 

[chem geek]

However, there are ionizers on the market that do not cause staining and have never caused staining. With these products, the pool maintenance IS easier and you use LESS chemicals. There are many people who use these products and love them.

That is simply not true because your system and the others do not have anything measuring the metal ion concentration in the water and the pH of the water and automatically adjusting them to ensure that staining will not occur. Without such systems you are leaving it up to the homeowner to do (or get) metal tests that are accurate and to make sure the pH doesn't rise too high. Having a factor of 2 lower metal ion concentration is completely counteracted by a 0.3 unit rise in pH in terms of the potential for metal staining. A lower copper target concentration (mostly from the presence of zinc that enhances copper effectiveness as an algaecide) reduces metal staining risk, but does not eliminate it if one is not diligent about both the metal ion concentration and the pH. Copper stains are far more difficult to remove from plaster than iron stains which is one reason why we are so hesitant to recommend any product with that risk.

My understanding was that EPA was 0.5 to 3ppm with an ionizer

As I linked to before the NSF Standard 50 "Copper/Silver and Copper Ion Generators" all say "This product is designed to be operated with no less than 0.4 ppm free chlorine or 0.8 ppm free bromine." Those are the minimums. The maximum FC from the EPA is 4 ppm based on the maximum listed in Drinking Water Contaminants. Many disinfectant products (not metal ionization systems) say 1-3 ppm but could say 1-4 ppm if they wanted to.

Basically, the only useful aspect to the metal ions is specifically with copper ions for use as an algaecide in residential pools (where the risk of person-to-person transmission of disease is lower and there are fewer liability issues) because that is really what lets one lower the active chlorine level below that needed to prevent algae growth, but also reducing disinfection rates since you provide no guidelines as to CYA level. However, as I've written before, if reducing the active chlorine level is one's goal then one can use Polyquat 60 algaecide weekly or can use a phosphate remover and accomplish the same thing but without any risk of metal staining or blond hair turning green.

I already linked to the site-specific Google search showing numerous posts of problems from people using a very large variety of metal ion systems (in this post earlier in this thread), including separately added chemicals, ionization systems, copper only, copper/silver/zinc combos, etc. The fact is that if the copper or silver levels get too high or the pH gets too high or both, then metal staining can occur on pool surfaces and most especially plaster surfaces since they tend to be alkaline. Using a metal ion system right after a new plaster job would be irresponsible since the pH tends to rise greatly and the pH at the surface of the plaster is quite high so much more likely to precipitate (stain) the oxides-hydroxides of copper and silver.

Michael, in short, with your personal financial incentives to selling these systems, you have to provide 3rd party validation of your claims. Also, you've been shown to be wrong on numerous assertions that you have made so to restore your credibility you really have to do what we try and do which is to focus on scientific peer-reviewed research and on reports from thousands if not tens of thousands of pool owners with no financial interest in any particular system. It is absolutely possible to measure and maintain metal ion levels so that they do not get too high and pH so that it does not get too high -- no one is disputing that such a system can be used -- but there are risks if one is not diligent. More importantly, there are alternatives that accomplish the same goals without such risks. Finally, such goals are questionable to begin with since the active chlorine level in the pools following the guidelines of this forum is less than the equivalent of 0.1 ppm FC with no CYA.