My reply to a thread about borates was deleted... Am I off the mark?

[duraleigh]

Well, that is certainly an interesting find. Virtually all of these articles were written by volunteers and expressed a lot of opinions that, at the writing, was what the author thought.

At some point, there needs to be a revision of virtually every article but that is an intimidating project. To do that, we would first need a governing authority I think. That would probably be the first step and it is a little daunting.

 

[mgtfp]

I think Borates have their application in keeping pH inside a SWG cell down and the cell clean, even in more challenging higher CH situations. That effect is proven. It's quite basic chemistry to understand how a buffer with a pKa of 9.2 will limit pH-rise in those higher regions.

I have seen this myself with my old SWG cell that that was quite aged and worn out, but still producing chlorine, so I held on to it. But it kept scaling up like crazy, spitting calcium flakes into the pool. Problem was gone after adding boric acid, and I got some more use out of the cell. Until I replaced the whole system when the control unit started mucking up. I suspect, the new cell would be fine without borates, but I don't have a baseline without borates to compare now.

I believe everything else about borates is wishful thinking. I did see the point of algaestatic properties for a while, but after reading the exact same source that PoolStored posted, I came to the conclusion that that's not really relevant for pool maintenance. Probably a straw that the pool industry is grasping for to find reasons to keep FC down to the "traditional" range. Chlorine is a much simpler solution to algae, and proven to be efficient.

If there's a cell scaling problem: Go for it. If not: Why bother and make pool chemistry more complex.

 

[SoDel]

Interesting read but I remain on the fence for my pool. My takeaways are: it makes logical sense that borates would interfere in the biological process of algae but we don’t have data on what levels make a practical difference and chlorine on its own works plenty good. I’m not a chemist but the pKa of 9.2 hints to me that it won’t be of a whole lot of practical value in my whole pool, but as @mgtfp related, it may help inside the SWG cell. I’ve also heard that borates make the water feel more silky, but I’m a water is wet kind of guy. Don’t need any silky.

Anyway, discussion often reveals new ideas or new uses for old ones so good discussion .

 

[mgtfp]

I’m not a chemist but the pKa of 9.2 hints to me that it won’t be of a whole lot of practical value in my whole pool, but as @mgtfp related, it may help inside the SWG cell

There is a small effect in the higher sevens, that's where the borates' buffering starts to kick in. You easily see the effect when looking at the difference in required acid amounts to lower pH from 8 to 7.6 with and without borates. That also works in the opposite direction, you'd have to add more base to increase pH from 7.6 to 8 with borates compared to without.

They do slow down pH rise towards 8, but they don't remove the source of the pH rise as lower TA does. There is an indirect effect that at identical TA, Carbonate Alkalinity is lower with part of TA being Borate Alkalinity.

But borates do shine at the higher pH values you can get in regions within an SWG cell.

They don't do much to prevent pH from crashing, actually make it (with TA being identical in normal pH operational range) slightly worse, because once you are below 7, the borates contribution to TA is gone and you have less carbonate alkalinity to take over.

I don't see any benefits in a Trichlor maintained pool, where pH is typically lower, and you actually want some carbonate alkalinity to actively counter the pH-pull from the tabs and not just buffer it. Not that I want to promote Trichlor here...

it makes logical sense that borates would interfere in the biological process of algae but we don’t have data on what levels make a practical difference and chlorine on its own works plenty good

There is the data that PoolStored was citing (table 7). Above 100ppm the effects on algae become noticeable, not very significant in the 30-50 range. Maybe it gives you a grace period before an algae bloom kicks off, but why bother when you can manage that just with appropriate FC.

 

[AUSpool]

I didn’t think we really talk too much about chlorine demand or use it as a pool management tool. I’ve always just maintained my FC level according to my CyA level.

If I maintain my FC/CyA ratio I don’t have algae. And if I don’t have algae the borates in my pool will have no algaestatic function.

I’m still on the fence with borates. I didn't find any difference in the feel of the water when I added borates. If a chemical element has merit it needs to be easily monitored and adjusted according regular testing. I think the test strips are subjective and too vague while the current drop test is beyond the average person. And when borates are used it is kind of important to know the current level because it quite drastically affects pH management. Just adding some at random is not good enough.

Boron as a Micronutrient Excessive boron, introduced through borates, can cause toxicity in algae, disrupting their cellular functions and inhibiting growth.

This is backwards, if borates are a required micronutrient we would need to limit them to inhibit growth.

 

[mgtfp]

I think the test strips are subjective and too vague while the current drop test is beyond the average person. And when borates are used it is kind of important to know the current level because it quite drastically affects pH management. Just adding some at random is not good enough.

Yep. That's pretty much what I had in mind with

If not: Why bother and make pool chemistry more complex.

 

[SoDel]

I didn’t think we really talk too much about chlorine demand or use it as a pool management tool. I’ve always just maintained my FC level according to my CyA level.

If I maintain my FC/CyA ratio I don’t have algae. And if I don’t have algae the borates in my pool will have no algaestatic function.

I’m still on the fence with borates. I didn't find any difference in the feel of the water when I added borates. If a chemical element has merit it needs to be easily monitored and adjusted according regular testing. I think the test strips are subjective and too vague while the current drop test is beyond the average person. And when borates are used it is kind of important to know the current level because it quite drastically affects pH management. Just adding some at random is not good enough.



This is backwards, if borates are a required micronutrient we would need to limit them to inhibit growth.

All plant nutrients (generally applicable to all substances and all life) are beneficial or at least innocuous at appropriate levels and toxic at excessive levels. There’s that devil in the details: what’s beneficial and what’s toxic? I’m thinking of potassium at the moment. At sufficient levels the plant has enough (on the golf course, it’s called the MLSN — minimum level for sustainable nutrition). A bit more and the plant won’t take it up but it’s innocuous. A bit more and the plant dies. But your observation begs the question: at say 50 ppm, does boron feed algae, suppress it, or do nothing?

 

[mgtfp]

I don't think boron ever "feeds" algae, but some traces my be required for cell processes. I think these traces are measured in ppb rather than ppm.

 

[Newdude]

If I maintain my FC/CyA ratio I don’t have algae. And if I don’t have algae the borates in my pool will have no algaestatic function

Nor will algecides, clarifiers, ionizers, UV or Ozone devices to name a few of the industry's algae control methods.

How about we use a method that doesn't accept having algae ?

I am wary of any source that thinks having algae is normal. They, themselves, proved why.

 

[AUSpool]

But your observation begs the question: at say 50 ppm, does boron feed algae, suppress it, or do nothing?

I don’t know for sure. There is no doubt that boron is a micronutrient but the small amount of literature I glanced at doesn’t put numbers on the topic. I don’t think 50ppm would feed algae, I don’t think it would suppress it either although at 50ppm the algae probably wouldn’t be happy. But more like sleeping on a lumpy mattress type of unhappy. A couple of the borate sds list the IC50 (inhibitory concentration) at around 160mg/L. If 160mg/L will inhibit the growth in 50% of the population then 50mg/L (50ppm) won’t do much.

How about we use a method that doesn't accept having algae ?

I thought we did. I’m not very good at offering SLAM advice, in over ten years I’ve never had algae and never SLAMed any of my pools. I’ve eaten algae at sushi restaurants but that probably doesn’t count.

I agree, there is something wrong with a system that requires a random amount of “shock” once a week.

 

[Gotta Pool]

I agree with much that has been written, especially giving Richard Falk credit for the intellectual property that has caused us to revisit our understanding(s) of pool care. If one wants citations, I suggest that Richards's work is the place to go as it was written in a scholarly manner, including copious citations (though, today, some of those cited articles are a little hard to come by).

As for Borates, "at least one Sodium Tetraborate product does have an EPA registration as an algaestat). See here and here. The one point that needs to be amplified is that in pool use borates are not an algaecide, but instead are an algaestat. IOW, they act to keep you out of trouble not get you out of trouble (and they won't).

In this day and time, with big box stores (the only outlet available to many) selling 10% sodium hypochlorite for nearly $9/gal., things like borates, phosphates, and the CYA/chlorine relationships need to be reexamined.

 

[ajw22]

In this day and time, with big box stores (the only outlet available to many) selling 10% sodium hypochlorite for nearly $9/gal., things like borates, phosphates, and the CYA/chlorine relationships need to be reexamined.

Reexamined for what reason?

I think many of us reexamine our pool care every season. New insights are shared on the Forum.

Stay tuned.

 

[Donldson]

In this day and time, with big box stores (the only outlet available to many) selling 10% sodium hypochlorite for nearly $9/gal., things like borates, phosphates, and the CYA/chlorine relationships need to be reexamined.

I didn't realize budget constraints had an effect on chemistry

Reminds me of the people who insist we give advice based on test strip readings because they don't want to spend money on a reliable test kit...

 

[SoDel]

I agree with much that has been written, especially giving Richard Falk credit for the intellectual property that has caused us to revisit our understanding(s) of pool care. If one wants citations, I suggest that Richards's work is the place to go as it was written in a scholarly manner, including copious citations (though, today, some of those cited articles are a little hard to come by).

As for Borates, "at least one Sodium Tetraborate product does have an EPA registration as an algaestat). See here and here. The one point that needs to be amplified is that in pool use borates are not an algaecide, but instead are an algaestat. IOW, they act to keep you out of trouble not get you out of trouble (and they won't).

In this day and time, with big box stores (the only outlet available to many) selling 10% sodium hypochlorite for nearly $9/gal., things like borates, phosphates, and the CYA/chlorine relationships need to be reexamined.

Agree that it’s always worthwhile to keep an open mind and there’s always something new under the sun. But having gone down the rabbit hole in the past of CYA/FC ratios resulting in HOCL concentrations with corresponding contact time needed to acceptably disinfect various pathogens, we can’t lose sight of adequate sanitation versus just algae suppression. Looking at it from that lens, chlorine remains king, and the new thinking is SWG to counter ever rising LC prices. My thinking is that enough FC for adequate sanitation is also enough for algae suppression, and less than that is not enough. Reasonable minds can differ on acceptable contact times. For me, running the SWG and following FC recommendations here result in safe, cost effective and “trouble free” swimming .

 

[Gotta Pool]

Don't confuse the "HOCL concentrations with corresponding contact time needed to acceptably disinfect various pathogens" (copiously documented by Richard Falk) with the prevention of algae. I maintain my pool with considerations of Borates, Phosphates, and the CYA/Chlorine relationships derived, documented, and cited, by Richard. My pool is clean and sanitary.

As for the aside that I might be a cheapskate in pool testing, I have always recommended the Taylor K-2006-C kit and used it frequently enough to derive an intelligent run schedule for my peristaltic pump based on temperature, lux, and other pertinent parameters.

I don't add anything to my pool that is not needed and justified and that includes chlorine in excess! That is the TFP way is it not?

 

[SoDel]

Don't confuse the "HOCL concentrations with corresponding contact time needed to acceptably disinfect various pathogens" (copiously documented by Richard Falk) with the prevention of algae. I maintain my pool with considerations of Borates, Phosphates, and the CYA/Chlorine relationships derived, documented, and cited, by Richard. My pool is clean and sanitary.

As for the aside that I might be a cheapskate in pool testing, I have always recommended the Taylor K-2006-C kit and used it frequently enough to derive an intelligent run schedule for my peristaltic pump based on temperature, lux, and other pertinent parameters.

I don't add anything to my pool that is not needed and justified and that includes chlorine in excess! That is the TFP way is it not?

Yes, as mentioned, reasonable minds can differ as to acceptable contact times and the HOCL concentration needed to achieve the desired result. I get what you’re saying as to maintaining a minimum FC/CYA ratio which gives you acceptable sanitation and then look to other methods for algae suppression. But what I’m saying is that for me, that minimum FC/CYA ratio for sanitation is within the TFP recommended ranges while also being adequate for algae suppression. It is my opinion, just going from memory here, that maintaining a pool at an FC/CYA ratio lower than the existing TFP guidelines does not provide adequate sanitation. Other opinions are no less valid and jurisdictions appear to vary wildly as to acceptable contact times, minimum FC levels and for the enlightened ones FC/CYA ratios, so maybe we agree but just have a different take on what’s enough.

 

[Donldson]

As for the aside that I might be a cheapskate in pool testing

I don't recall making that aside. I recall stating that some people try to say that the procedures of the forum should be adjusted based upon what they do and do not want to do, and then comparing your thought process to those people, but nowhere did I make any comment regarding your testing specifically.

 

[Gotta Pool]

No, you didn't, but I didn't say you did!

 

[Newdude]

I don't add anything to my pool that is not needed and justified and that includes chlorine in excess! That is the TFP way is it not?

It is. And one can hack the system, particularly chlorine in excess, to remain on course when life gets in the way.

With 2 teens and a career, I can't (or don't choose to) watch my pool closely. So I have a SWG to add more FC than I *need* in order to free up bandwidth and time for the hustle bustle of life.

It's a no brainer trade off for many of us, but in no way *needed*. Just that we can apply our TFP skills to help lessen the load.

One day when I have too much free time, I'll probably want to watch the pool like a hawk, simply for something to do. Until then, #teamrunhot for the win.

 

[Gotta Pool]

"reasonable minds can differ as to acceptable contact times and the HOCL concentration needed to achieve the desired result."

My point was that acceptable contact times and the HOCL concentration wasn't an opinion left up to reasonable minds, rather that contact times and HOCl concentrations were a matter of documented science. Some things we have the misfortune to find in our pool water are very difficult to kill and require scientific minimums of time and HOCl contact to sanitize the water. You can bet that my everyday concentrations of HOCl vary with exceptional usage, like a pool party, or the toddler that pooped in the pool. Sometimes, but not always, Caddyshack gets real!