My recent experience going through a SLAM for mustard algae in my above-ground pool made me think about the recommendations against use of any kind of algaecide in the process, and sodium bromide algaecide specifically.
Someone stated that applying any bromine to a chlorine pool turns it into a bromine pool where any future addition of chlorine gets turned to bromine. This makes no sense to me. I do not know of any chemical reaction that can turn chlorine atoms into bromine, so my first guess is that I am misunderstanding what is meant by "turns into a bromine pool".
I also question the suggestion that bromine stays in your pool forever once added. I read mentions of this multiple times while reading up ahead of my SLAM but I would like to understand how exactly this would be the case in an outdoor pool. Is this just a function of bromine being much less likely to evaporate at normal outdoor temperatures than chlorine? Why would the lack of a UV stabilizer chemical for bromine then rule out its use in outdoor pools if it's so hardy and resistant to evaporation at normal outdoor temperatures?
I'm not trying to say, why not bromine instead of chlorine for outdoor pools. Rather I'm trying to understand why exactly, would use of a bromide-based algaecide be anywhere near to an irreversible action, and whether in fact its benefit in speeding up eradication of something so naturally chlorine-resistant actually outweighs the risks in increased chlorine use down the line?
How long would an algaecide dose's amount of bromine actually stick around in a summer outdoor pool before becoming effectively gone? Are we talking days, weeks, or a few months? Is there actually a chemical mechanism where amount of bromine in the water actually increases by virtue of regular chlorination? And finally, are there other considerations at work within the context of the TFP approach that prompt the blanket recommendation (such as, maybe small bromine content can still throw off testing accuracy in a chlorine pool).
I question this specific case because I sense a resistance to using any kind of algaecide, even polyquat, even in cases where some initial dosing would clearly aid in speeding up cleanup of heavy algae infestation without increasing risk to equipment. (Note that I am fully on board with avoiding metal-based algaecides--I am very clear on the reasons these are best avoided in almost all cases.) I wonder why It's not even presented as an optional consideration with an up-front caveat (choose this higher cost option for faster recovery) in special cases outside the norm.
I posted this in the Deep End because I really want to get the details that will inform my own choices for my pool, and I know there are really knowledgeablepeople here who can further explain the rationale behind these recommendations. I love the idea behind the TFP method of taking control over one's own pool from the pool shop, and for me that includes not forgoing a useful tool simply because it is special-purpose.
Someone stated that applying any bromine to a chlorine pool turns it into a bromine pool where any future addition of chlorine gets turned to bromine. This makes no sense to me. I do not know of any chemical reaction that can turn chlorine atoms into bromine, so my first guess is that I am misunderstanding what is meant by "turns into a bromine pool".
I also question the suggestion that bromine stays in your pool forever once added. I read mentions of this multiple times while reading up ahead of my SLAM but I would like to understand how exactly this would be the case in an outdoor pool. Is this just a function of bromine being much less likely to evaporate at normal outdoor temperatures than chlorine? Why would the lack of a UV stabilizer chemical for bromine then rule out its use in outdoor pools if it's so hardy and resistant to evaporation at normal outdoor temperatures?
I'm not trying to say, why not bromine instead of chlorine for outdoor pools. Rather I'm trying to understand why exactly, would use of a bromide-based algaecide be anywhere near to an irreversible action, and whether in fact its benefit in speeding up eradication of something so naturally chlorine-resistant actually outweighs the risks in increased chlorine use down the line?
How long would an algaecide dose's amount of bromine actually stick around in a summer outdoor pool before becoming effectively gone? Are we talking days, weeks, or a few months? Is there actually a chemical mechanism where amount of bromine in the water actually increases by virtue of regular chlorination? And finally, are there other considerations at work within the context of the TFP approach that prompt the blanket recommendation (such as, maybe small bromine content can still throw off testing accuracy in a chlorine pool).
I question this specific case because I sense a resistance to using any kind of algaecide, even polyquat, even in cases where some initial dosing would clearly aid in speeding up cleanup of heavy algae infestation without increasing risk to equipment. (Note that I am fully on board with avoiding metal-based algaecides--I am very clear on the reasons these are best avoided in almost all cases.) I wonder why It's not even presented as an optional consideration with an up-front caveat (choose this higher cost option for faster recovery) in special cases outside the norm.
I posted this in the Deep End because I really want to get the details that will inform my own choices for my pool, and I know there are really knowledgeablepeople here who can further explain the rationale behind these recommendations. I love the idea behind the TFP method of taking control over one's own pool from the pool shop, and for me that includes not forgoing a useful tool simply because it is special-purpose.
