David121 Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 I've been operating my pool using a "Barramundi Fresh Water" sanitation system, which uses an ioniser to maintain low Cu2+ ion levels as well as producing ozone as an instant kill sanitation. I've been operating it for two months with no issues and our pool builder showed us dozens of pools he'd installed it on, all very happy with the system, having used it for several years. Yet i mentioned it on another pool forum site and was kicked off! lol...they were very againsst anything that wasn't Chlorine, i must admit i had the same hesitation beforehand but am now converted. I can't however find any system like it outside of Australia, all the ozone systems overseas i've seen have been big bulky horrible things... Has anyone else got this system? Or even heard of it lol? I'm completely perplexed as we've found it to be such a delight to swim in compared to our old salt water one. Yet on the other site i was barraged with comments telling me i was swimming in septic tank, despite explaining the science behind it at a university level they all thought i was a heretic... Has anyone got any experience with this or a similar system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterbear Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 I've been operating my pool using a "Barramundi Fresh Water" sanitation system, which uses an ioniser to maintain low Cu2+ ion levels as well as producing ozone as an instant kill sanitation. I've been operating it for two months with no issues and our pool builder showed us dozens of pools he'd installed it on, all very happy with the system, having used it for several years. Yet i mentioned it on another pool forum site and was kicked off! lol...they were very againsst anything that wasn't Chlorine, i must admit i had the same hesitation beforehand but am now converted. I can't however find any system like it outside of Australia, all the ozone systems overseas i've seen have been big bulky horrible things... Has anyone else got this system? Or even heard of it lol? I'm completely perplexed as we've found it to be such a delight to swim in compared to our old salt water one. Yet on the other site i was barraged with comments telling me i was swimming in septic tank, despite explaining the science behind it at a university level they all thought i was a heretic... Has anyone got any experience with this or a similar system? Neither ozone or copper are primary residual sanitizers and I am wondering if it has the approval of the ASVAME, since they have cracked down on ionizer systems and require them to be used with normal and not reduced chlorine levels. Also, they do not approve of ozone or copper as a primary sanitizer, nor does the EPA in the US. I checked out their website and it seems to be a pretty standard copper ionizer and corona discharge ozone generator combo. Interesting how they say it can be used with chlorine. Be aware that the pH of 6.8 that they recommend to prevent staining (pretty standard for ionizers) can be damaging to plaster pools over time and the recommended copper levels of .4 to .7 ppm can and will cause staining and can and will turn hair green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David121 Posted November 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 ASVAME? Sorry what does that stand for? I didn't get any hits on google lol. From all the research i've done that seems to be the consensus, however our pool builder said that their association (in my state) had been lobbying the local equivalent about this system to get in mainstream approved with some headway...but had been getting all their resistance from the chemical manufacturers putting allot of pressure on the authority because obviously you don't have to buy chlorine for that system. In our region it is still approved, i queried our builder about it and he's been very upfront about everything, its only been running about 6 weeks and everything else has had to comply with the latest regs... I'm very confused what to believe because my experience has been great but allot of people are against it. We have a fully tiled concrete pool, only the more expensive pool builders in my area are using it and they're always concrete fully tiled anyway. (Gum leaves leach tannins which stain anything but tiles so they're a bit of a must in my area). The copper staining hasn't been a problem at that concentration, did accidentally set it to high initially which caused some minor staining but quickly disappeared when it was corrected. Had it at 3.3ppm at its worst, which caused some minor hair staining...but even at 2.6 it wasn't causing staining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterbear Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 ASVAME? Sorry what does that stand for? I didn't get any hits on google lol. From all the research i've done that seems to be the consensus, however our pool builder said that their association (in my state) had been lobbying the local equivalent about this system to get in mainstream approved with some headway...but had been getting all their resistance from the chemical manufacturers putting allot of pressure on the authority because obviously you don't have to buy chlorine for that system. In our region it is still approved, i queried our builder about it and he's been very upfront about everything, its only been running about 6 weeks and everything else has had to comply with the latest regs... I'm very confused what to believe because my experience has been great but allot of people are against it. Whoops, meant APVMA (It's the late hour that I am typing) , the Australian equivalent of the EPA since you mentioned that you can't find a system like it outside of Australia and, unless Australia has just very recently modified their regulations, this would not be an approved sanitizer system there without the inclusion of chlorine at normal levels. Interesting that this company's US base (Boise, ID) has only 1 dealer in the entire US--Rocky Mountain Pools. I think that speaks volumes in and of itself! You have not had the system for very long. You will have problems with stains, green hair, and if your pool is plaster the low pH will take its toll. You will have clear water since copper is an effective algaecide but clear water is not always safe water. Copper has slow kill times and is not very effective against viruses. Ozone has no residual effect and it is also toxic so you DON"T want any residual in the water! Copper is toxic also, it is an EPA registered pesticide! Nothing new about your system. It's just an ionizer/ozone combo. Corona discharge ozone generators are the good kind btw. I have seen first hand what ionizers can do to pools and have had the "pleasure" of trying to minimize the resultant copper stains on customer's pools. As an aside, I have also been a licensed barber and cosmetologist for over 30 years (and have taught both) and have had to remover copper 'green' from hair on many occasions when working in that field. Interestingly enough, it's done basically the same way and with the same chemicals as it's done in a pool, with citric acid and sodium thiosulfate. There are several other ionizer systems besides this on the market, many of which also incorperate ozone or 'nascent oxygen'. However, the sciences is against them because they are not effective, FAST ACTNG AND RESIDUAL santizers. There are only three (count em, three) EPA approved sanitizers--chlorine, bromine, and biguanide. Everything else is supplemental. Some (like ozone) can be useful in some circumstances, others (like copper) are more hype than anything else! Copper is an effective algaecide but with several undesirable side effects. It is not an effective sanitizer with or without ozone. I am very sure your pool builder said good things about this system. He sold it to you and made money on it , didn't he? Not a particularly unbiased view, it is? Understand that you can swim in raw sewage in your own pool if you wanted. There are no laws against it. However, in a commercial pool then it gets more stringent and one of the approved EPA sanitizers would then be required. Copper and/or Ozone alone would not do it! Nor does the APVMA permit it either. I also find it interesting that on the Australian website they sell a peristaltic pump for dosing chlorine and have this disclaimer directly under it's picture: subject to local regulatory conditions, in some areas the use of a small additional sanitiser is recommended according to government regulations. Hmmmm, interesting, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterbear Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 Even more interesting, When you go to the website listed in the instruction manual to register the unit it takes you to Ecosmarte.au. Ecosmarte a the main manufacurere of copper/oxygen systems and they have so much pseudoscience behind them it's really sad. This is snake oil to the max! Just google ecosmarte and see! Hate to say it but you've been had. Guess Ecosmarte has to try and change their name because they are getting such a bad rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumchromodynamics Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 The states regulate the swimming pool codes in Australia in addition to the National Standards, the APVMA regulations and the GSPO (Guidelines for Safe Pool Operation), which is published by the Royal Life Saving Society. For example, the S.A.H.C. (South Australian Health Commission) provides this code, which specifies the acceptable sanitizers as chlorine and UV/hydrogen peroxide. This supplement approves bromine for use in swimming pools. Therefore, in South Australia, only chlorine, bromine and UV/H2O2 are approved. The Royal Life Saving Society of Australia publishes the Guidelines for Safe Pool Operation (GSPO), which sets forth certain minimum standards. Here is a page describing some of the regulations that pertain to the individual states and territories. Here is the Australian Standard for sanitation of private swimming pools. AS 3633-1989 Private swimming pools - Water quality Australian StandardSets out requirements for private swimming pools for achieving and maintaining sanitary water conditions for the protection of bather's health and comfort, ensuring the aesthetic appeal of the water and protecting the pool, its fittings and its accessories. Reference Chlorine and bromine based disinfectants are the only satisfactory pool and spa disinfectants.http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/environmental/disinfection.html http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/PublicHealth/environment/water/water_spa.asp This specifies chlorine, bromine or biguanide (Baquacil). http://www.apvma.gov.au/use_safely/pool/background.php http://www.apvma.gov.au/use_safely/pool/index.php The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is warning owners of pools and spas to make sure, for health reasons, that when using water sanitising devices based on silver or silver and copper, they should also use registered pool chemicals containing chlorine or bromine.If you have a water sanitising device or system installed in your pool or spa it must be being used in conjunction with a chlorine or bromine based pool chemical. Reference Here is a reference from the WHO (World Health Organization). What state are you in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem geek Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 This particular poster is trolling the various pool websites and promoting this system. There is this thread at TFP (probably the "other site" he refers to) about this including my response near the end of that thread here. This is, in fact, a variant of Ecosmarte for Australia with the same sort of lying tactics. Read the documentation of their system and you'll see that they claim there is a corona discharge ozonator but the titanium plates are in the water, not in air that is injected into the water! So it's really more like an electrolytic oxidation system, but without special plates it mostly just produces oxygen. He did not explain the science "at a university level" and even made comments (posting as another poster "merlock") that hydrochloric acid had the "Cl" in HCl evaporate and nonsense like that in this post. Then he claimed that copper ions kill bacteria and viruses quickly, etc. He made claims about approval of the system that were false since it is not approved as a disinfectant -- no residual fast-acting disinfectant is present in this system (copper kills too slowly or not at all for fecal bacteria at copper ion concentrations in pools). In the thread in this forum, David121 says that he's had the system for 2 months, but at TFP in this post he said he had the system for 4 years. He also posted as "merlock" from the same IP address, even having an argument with himself in that TFP thread. David, or whatever your real name is, how do you wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror, being as deceitful as you are. How do you live with yourself? Do you have a conscience? Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumchromodynamics Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 David121, your system is not an approved sanitizer by any of the relevant standards. It is illegal and unethical to sell it as a primary sanitizer. Just because it is being used on a private residential pool, does not mean that you can do anything you want. Since the system does not sanitize the water, the pool constitutes a hazard. And, as such, if anyone were to get sick or otherwise injured from using the pool, you could potentially be held liable, both civilly and criminally. It would be similar to maintaining any other hazard on your property, such as not having a fence etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David121 Posted November 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 I'm not bloody trying to sell this system! I'm very concerned and angry at the moment, it is a very expensive pool (and yes we got quotes from several builders his was about the average in the upper end, however now that i think about it i think the others mentioned an UV based system?), so if the system doesn't work i'm quite frustrated. I need to know basically now whether or not we're going to have to replace the system or not because we're about to install a bush-fire sprinkler system and whether or not it is salt, chlorine etc makes a huge difference to what sprinklers we have to use aswell as the price, and we're not going to take risks with our lives in a bushfire because the system doesn't work so thats why i'm asking!I need to sort this out before the system is installed. Secondly, websites advertising the product claim it to produce ozone, chemically i cannot see how this is possible using titanium plates within the water,i would think hydrogen peroxide would more likely be produced...however i cannot seem to get a redox reaction to work (i have a decent level of chemistry) and i asked an older friend with honours in chemistry and she couldn't figure it out either. I do not however believe it to produce di-atomic oxygen because if that were the case they could simply stick two graphite rods in their for a fraction of the cost. Anecdotally we saw several pools built by our builder who were all extremely happy with the system, had been operating it for four years or more without problem, not with staining either. I was very hesitant at first trying to work it out but with the number of happy customers i just assumed it must work and gave up trying to figure it out. Our pool is fully tiled/concrete, structurally it is extremely well built (had it insepcted by structural engineers). On that other website i detailed everything i knew about the system and how i'd been led to believe it work, and everything i knew about low level copper's effects on organisms and virion particles...i'm desperately trying to work this out because i really can't believe that he'd be selling us this system with out a problem, as for him making money off of it, he was very open about all costs, even absorbed some of the extra costs associated with the excavation to try to keep to his original quote (which he was not legally obliged as we had accepted that the excavation was not fixed cost due to our extremely difficult site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumchromodynamics Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 I recommend that you use an approved sanitizing system. A salt system makes chlorine, so that would create sanitary water. Just because the water looks clear, does not mean that is it sanitary. The references that I provided show the types if contamination that can cause serious injury or death. Bacteria, viruses and protozoa can cause serious injury, sickness and even death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem geek Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 I do not however believe it to produce di-atomic oxygen because if that were the case they could simply stick two graphite rods in their for a fraction of the cost. Graphite rods would not last very long at all. That's why titanium (or titanium coated) plates are used. The primary reaction is simply the electrolysis of water: 2H2O ---> O2 + 4H+ + 4e- ..... E0 = -1.229V 4H2O + 4e- ---> 2H2 + 4OH- ..... E0 = -0.8277V --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2H2O ---> O2(g) + 2H2(g) Now the significant extra voltage that is used will produce some side reactions including the following: Hydrogen Peroxide: 2H2O ---> H2O2 + 2H+ + 2e- .... E0 = -1.776V Hydroxyl Radicals: H2O ---> OH• + H+ + e- ..... E0 = -2.59V Ozone: O2 + H2O ---> O3 + 2H+ + 2e- ..... E0 = -2.076V Chlorine: Cl- + H2O ---> HOCl + H+ + 2e- ..... E0 = -1.482V However, all of the above side reactions are far less likely to occur than the one producing oxygen gas (unless the chloride level is high in which case more chlorine is produced). If you are so concerned with your system, then why did you come to two different websites saying how great it was and signing in as two different usernames on TFP? Why did you claim in this post that "after four years i'm yet to have a problem" yet you now say you've only had the system for 2 months? Something still smells very fishy here. It's time for you to fully fess up with the truth. There are no laws regulating what you have to do with your private pool or spa in terms of sanitation; such requirements for disinfectants are with commercial/public pools. There are regulations regarding claims, but note that there is NO claim for disinfection or sanitation with the Barramundi system except when using the optional chlorine injector. There is only a claim to "destroy algae and other pool organisms" which is true because copper ions do prevent algae growth and do kill some bacteria but generally slowly and do not kill nor inhibit fecal nor blood-borne bacteria or many other pathogens. Basically, you've been had. You can certainly take a risk as the many other people are apparently doing from this same pool builder. It's your pool and you can do whatever you want with it. I just hope you don't end up with the problems as described in this post from someone using a copper ion system called Pristine Blue (Ecosmarte would be essentially the same as what you have so you can search and read about them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David121 Posted November 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 Hi Read this paper, the product has been completely mis-represented by the company selling it, they claimed it added ozone to the system, it is not the primary sanitiser. I've been trying to figure it out for several weeks and finally found this paper, basically the people selling it have no idea what is going on. "Disinfection of water by electrochemical treatment" G. Patermarakisa and E. Fountoukidisa http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V73-48CFRHR-GV&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1560894187&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b18aea902906a9d5e8d5ebf2e60b11c3&searchtype=a The system actually does have chlorine as a residual sanitiser, although it is not added, chlorine is present in water anyway it just enables its use much more efficiently, for lack of a better explanation. (Read the article and you'll see what i mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David121 Posted November 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 Also it is not a corona discharge generator, despite what the websites say, copper isn't the primary residual sanitiser, its all enabled by Titaniums unique position on the metal reactivity series, sorry for all the confusion i believed what the websites claimed but they just had a profound mis-understanding of what was going on, and using their explanation of it what everyone here said made me definitely believe the system couldn't possibly work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumchromodynamics Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 There are no laws regulating what you have to do with your private pool or spa in terms of sanitation; such requirements for disinfectants are with commercial/public pools. That's not necessarily true. Many jurisdictions require that property be maintained in good repair. Many local codes are written to make sure that property, structures and buildings are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use. For example: The Property Maintenance Code of New York State provides that swimming pools must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and in good repair.11http://www.dos.state.ny.us/code/currpoolreq.htm http://www.cityofutica.com/pdf/nyspmc.pdf SECTION 303 SWIMMING POOLS, SPAS AND HOT TUBS 303.1 Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and in good repair. http://www.pilesgrovenj.org/images/2003%20IPMC.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumchromodynamics Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 Deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David121 Posted November 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 The four year old pool is a friends built by the same builder which has not had problems, my pool is 2 months old and has not had problems (other than initially a malfunction with the copper ioniser causing a high level of copper in the pool which to remove i allowed the pH to increase to 7.3 added lots of sodium bicarbonate buffer. The buffer in its basic form (i.e CO32-)reacted to form insoluble CuCO3 crystals which were then very quickly filterd out by the cartridge filter. There was some minor staining of the grout between tiles but quickly disappeared after i corrected the pH. I queried my friend with honours in chemistry further because i was soo worried about the system now that i couldn't understand how the science could possibly work, (i'm in second year chemistry/biology)she helped me find that article along with a few others showing that Titanium electrolysis where the polarity is alternated can produce species which offer residual sanitation. (Again read the article). Again i have not had a single problem (other than with the ioniser which was replaced the following day) with this system, but i was getting a bit terrified that there was a problem because of everything said on here and the fact that the manufacturers website, the science they were telling me made no sense directly so i was constantly trying to aply what i knew about the pool and ozone, H2O2 to figure it out. Also i needed to know whether i was going to ahve to replace the system again because we're about to put in bush-fire sprinklers and the sprinkler type is determined by whether there is salt or high chlorine levels present. I changed accounts and which pool i was talking about because i received such hostility and because my view of what was actually happening changed as i read different retailer's (including the instruction manuals) of how it worked...none of their explanations stacked up against what you guys were saying, everything i said specifically about copper or ozone's abilities are correct however and you may read any source and find it to be correct, i could not (and did not claim) how it was able to instant kill a cell (hence my concerns, even though our pool is clean) . Again read the article and how its not relying on Cu as the main residual sanitiser or ozone (as i was led to believe by the manufacturer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterbear Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 After reviewing the info on TFP it is evident that the OP has not been completely honest here so I am locking this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem geek Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 This post is in response to a paper noted in this post in a locked thread so I'm just finishing this off here. No need to respond, but I wanted to document how ridiculous it is to take some valid scientific research and misapply it to pool water volumes. The paper in question is here and talks about how titanium plates used with electrolysis can kill bacteria. The titanium plates in the experiment were 5x5cm and the volume of contaminated water was 350 ml (0.092 gallons). The initial voltage demand was around 45-100V and the current was 125-250 mA for a current density of 2.5-5 mA/cm2. It took around 15 minutes of exposure to kill virtually all of the bacteria where the contaminated water started with 80 coliforms and 30 streptococci per liter. Additional coliforms were added at 200 to 26800 germs/ml. They discuss a variety of speculative chemical species that could be produced, most too short-lived to kill except very close to the electrode with the exception of chlorine. So let's apply this analysis to a 10,000 gallon pool with a turnover of 3 hours (56 GPM). How long is the water passing through the chamber exposed to the short-lived species near the plates that may be involved in killing? Let's be generous and assume that there is a complete reduction effect proportional to the time spent in the chamber (so 1 minute would be a 1/15th reduction and is consistent with what was described in the paper). According to this diagram the unit is 340 mm in length. Let's be generous and assume this entire length is the chamber, even though it's not. Let's assume that 2" pipe is used and use that as the effective diameter of the chamber. This is a volume of 13.4" x 3.14*(2/2)^2 = 42 cubic inches or 0.18 gallons. The time spent in the chamber is 60*0.18/56 = 0.19 seconds. For the nearly complete kill that takes 15 minutes (being conservative since the chamber is about twice the size of what was specified in the scientific paper), it would take 60*15/0.19 = 4737 turnovers assuming all the water went through with each turnover and ignoring the fact that bacteria can grow in the interim (in fact, during one turnover only 63% of the water goes through at least once, some of this water going through twice, etc.). In practice, only a fraction of the water in the chamber that is closest to the plates is likely to get sanitized so the situation is far worse than I described -- the electrolysis is basically useless in this case for disinfection. So making the assertion that this unit is effective for disinfection on the basis of the scientific paper is ludicrous. This post is just in case someone else brings up this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterbear Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 relocking thread after chem geek's excellent and informative response that I merged into this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts