The Journal of the Swimming Pool and Spa Industry - New Volume 6 Now Online

[QueHales]

The Journal of the Swimming Pool and Spa Industry is coming back! JSPSI, a peer-reviewed technical journal, began in 1995 as a subscription-supported print-based publication. It contained articles at a technical level, of interest especially to the more experienced members of the industry. The Journal discontinued publication in 2004, primarily due to the printing, binding and postage costs associated with a print journal.
A technical journal differs from other trade publications in that it contains no advertising, is not for profit, and is peer reviewed, a process where submitted articles are blind reviewed by experts in the specific field, and are selected based on appropriateness and scientific accuracy. Authors range from consultants to chemical manufacturing technical departments, from experienced tradesmen to trade organizations.
All previous articles from the old Volumes 1 through 5 are being prepared and posted to the website.
Que Hales, the Editor, has announced that the Journal will be revived as a free, online publication. JSPSI will still be laid out in a format suitable for printing and binding, but in a pdf format so readers may view articles online or print them for later reference or study.
This first new issue, Volume 6 Number 1, includes articles on chlorine, buffer, and cyanuric acid chemistry, and is available now by going to www.poolhelp.com and clicking JSPSI. Additional issues are expected to appear biannually. New submissions to the Journal may be addressed to [email protected].

 

[JoyfulNoise]

Awesome!! Thank you so much for doing this.

 

[CaveDiver1932]

A big thanks to Mr. Hales and the Journal of the Swimming Pool and Spas Industry for making these studies available to the public free of charge. The study conducted by Mr. Mitchell concerning the Effects of Cyanuric Acid (Chlorine Stabilizer) on Swimming Pool Plaster Surfaces is very interesting as it hits on a topic I asked about on TPF a while back. It is reassuring that some opinions in the industry align with my opinion on the subject. I assume NPC is relying on the study by Arch Chemical since (as far as I can tell) the NPC has not publicly referenced the Arch Chemical study for their stance on CYA higher than 100 p.p.m may result in deterioration to a pool surface.

Questions the study left me asking:

1. Why six-month study duration to determine the results of CYA on pool surfaces?
2. Why not two extra tanks with adjusted/elevated free chlorine FC levels to study the buffer effects/affects if any that CYA creates concerning high chlorine levels on the pool surfaces?

Perhaps the author would be kind enough to share.

Again, big thanks

Cheers

CD

 

[JoyfulNoise]

As a follow on comment on the plaster/CYA study, it was interesting to read the section regarding CYA testing. The author found that HPLC analysis of the CYA concentration confirmed that the standard Taylor “disappearing black dot” test gave consistent and reliable results under optimal lighting conditions AND the author found that a photometric turbidity test did not give consistent results even when standards were used.

We often see a lot of comments about how hard it is to do the Taylor test but it really is a good test at low cost. It’s good to have a study to point to to help make that point.

 

[bmoreswim]

This quote from conclusion section of the article on pH/CYA effect on disinfection sounds so familiar!

"It would be appropriate to establish an ideal free chlorine concentration range that varies with cyanuric acid concentration, rather than being fixed regardless of cyanurate levels." OK, Chlorine / CYA Chart, will this do?

It's easy to forget that TFP is the on the forefront of this, versus an industry which has to be prodded to slowly acknowledge something.

 

[JoyfulNoise]

This quote from conclusion section of the article on pH/CYA effect on disinfection sounds so familiar!

"It would be appropriate to establish an ideal free chlorine concentration range that varies with cyanuric acid concentration, rather than being fixed regardless of cyanurate levels." OK, Chlorine / CYA Chart, will this do?

It's easy to forget that TFP is the on the forefront of this, versus an industry which has to be prodded to slowly acknowledge something.

The problem is complicated because of the regulatory environment. The EPA “owns” the FIFRA regulation that control pesticide/fungicide/etc. Because chlorine and chlorine related products fall under FIFRA, the EPA has to establish limits based on available epidemiological and toxilogical data which, in turn, is “owned” by the CDC. So, because manufacturers of chemicals need liability coverage, they look to the government for regulatory language to shield them and EPA does not, or can not, make a distinction between chlorine used as a pesticide and chlorine used in a swimming pool. Basically the idea is this - “Hey, these are the numbers that the government says are ‘OK’ so we’re just publishing what they tell us to...”. So, at the end of the day, there are many in the industry that know that CYA affects the way FC should be handled but they can’t print that because they’d be exposed to liability if something went wrong.

This is where the MAHC committee is trying to make headway - ie, getting the CDC and EPA to come to an agreement on what to publish vis-a-vis recreational water sanitation. It might actually require an act of Congress though because chlorine is currently regulated under FIFRA and the EPA could simply punt and say, “Hey, we don’t have the regulatory authority to change this without explicit authorization from Congress to make the change...”

So yeah, it’s complicated....