Nature 2 In Addition To Chlorine.

[Jetman]

Tiny,

Love the pics of your new tub and site prep. LOOKS GREAT!!!! Nice job on the Paver walkway!!!!!!!

I just recently got my pre-owned Dimension One Serena Bay up and running and am enjoying morning (occasional) and eve soaks...havent missed one yet!!! I have a link in one of my posts with a slideshow of my project SERENA !!! LOL

Anyway..... Today I received my NATURE 2 mineral cartridge to supplement my sodium dichlor water treatment. I will let you know if there is a noticeble diff in the amt of chlorine i have to use!! D1 recommends the Vision only sold by them, but its $99 (can get on ebay for $69 plus shipping) , but I figured I would give Nature2 a shot at $19.50 to my door (ebay). They say they're good for 4 months, and Vision claims 6 months, but I still think your gettin more bang for your buck at $20 a pop, unless someone tells me Vision is much better quality.

HAPPY TUBBING!!!!!

Paul

[Brulan1]

Natural Chemistry makes great products. A lot of people swear by Spa Perfect.

Yeah your not kidding. People loveeee the spa perfect. Clogged filters, scumline

[Shaamus]

Natural Chemistry makes great products. A lot of people swear by Spa Perfect.

Yeah your not kidding. People loveeee the spa perfect. Clogged filters, scumline

Yeah, you're right. Just leave that stuff in your plumbing. Better yet, why don't you actually clean your filters and tub instead of blaming the product that keeps the pipes flushed out.

[D.P. Roberts]

Richard,

I hope you're still reading this - otherwise, I might have to venture over to the Chemistry forum, and that frightens me...

1) What's your take on MPS vs. chlorine as a shock treatment? From your post it sounds like MPS is a better oxidizer, so it's better to use MPS. On the other hand, people have stated that shocking with dichlor breaks up the combined chlorines. You said that MPS prevents the formation of combined chlorines, but does it break them up as well? Would it be better to use both, or just MPS?

2) You mentioned that ion systems can help chlorine be a better sanitizer. What's your take on other alternatives, such as "minerals" (Nature 2, Spa Frog - I assume these release silver ions, but they never say for sure), enzymes like "The Natural", magnets, etc.? Can any of these really help the sanitizing process?

[tony]

Richard,

I hope you're still reading this - otherwise, I might have to venture over to the Chemistry forum, and that frightens me...

1) What's your take on MPS vs. chlorine as a shock treatment? From your post it sounds like MPS is a better oxidizer, so it's better to use MPS. On the other hand, people have stated that shocking with dichlor breaks up the combined chlorines. You said that MPS prevents the formation of combined chlorines, but does it break them up as well? Would it be better to use both, or just MPS?

D.P.

I don't mean to interfere with your question to Richard but I wanted to share my experience because I have changed my shock methods after reading Richard's post. I, too, am interested in his replies. I switched to shocking with MPS on a regular weekly basis and have had zero combined chlorine since and I find my free chlorine lasts a bit longer than it did before. I've had my spa for years, so I have tried many methods of using chlorine. I have shocked with chlorine weekly, with chlorine only when my CC reaches .2 ppm, with a combo of chlorine and MPS, with MPS when CC reaches .2 ppm and of course with MPS weekly. I expect I will use a shock dose of chlorine if and when I register any CC as it seems chlorine does a better job of reducing these.

[chem geek]

D.P.,

First of all, you have to remember that I don't have a spa or hot tub myself -- only a pool. So I only comment from the theoretical chemistry plus what I glean from the experience of forum users, Ben Powell's Pool Solutions, scientific articles, etc. From everything I know, including communication with Dupont about MPS, chlorine isn't a great oxidizer against organics or even ammonia (if higher-level chloramines form -- that is, dichloramine and nitrogen trichloride) without assistance (I've done some breakpoint chlorination calculations so understand what Dupont means in terms of ammonia breakpont). In outdoor water exposed to sunlight, such assistance comes from the UV rays of the sun which not only breaks down chlorine itself, but also breaks down combined chlorine thus preventing its long-term build-up. I'm not clear as to whether the sunlight helps further oxidize the combined chlorine or whether it just reverts it back to a more original form (before it combined with chlorine) -- I'm guessing that it helps with oxidation (since the UV forms free radicals that then react further) so helps break down the organics. The use of enzymes should also catalyze (make faster) the oxidation reactions thereby helping chlorine break down organics more readily and not get "stuck" at combined chlorine, but this is theoretical and I haven't seen results from forum users using enzymes (instead of MPS or shocking with chlorine) and reporting minimal combined chlorine. We know that enzymes help with breaking down oil films and similar organics, but I don't have real-world confirmation on having enzymes keep Combined Chlorine lower.

MPS oxidizes organics and ammonia without needing the assistance that chlorine requires. So in that sense it is a better oxidizer and is therefore particularly appropriate when there is no sunlight exposure (or possibly enzymes). When there is MPS in the water, it oxidizes the organics before the chlorine even gets a chance to combine with them so it essentially prevents the formation of Combined Chlorines. MPS is not particularly good at oxidizing organics that have already combined with chlorine -- that is, it isn't very good at oxidizing combined chlorine though it does have some effect. So if you've already got Combined Chlorine, then shocking with high levels of chlorine can be better than using MPS in such "after the fact" situations. But even better is to use MPS regularly so with some residual of MPS there will be a continual prevention of Combined Chlorine formation by MPS oxidizing organics (and ammonia) first.

So the bottom line is that if sunlight is not available (and maybe if you aren't using enzymes), MPS should be used for shocking (more accurately, continual oxidation) instead of chlorine. It is better to prevent the formation of Combined Chlorine than to try and shock with chlorine to get rid of them. If, for whatever reason, Combined Chlorine does form (probably from MPS getting too low), then shocking with chlorine will help to get rid of them. Unfortunately, some people have reported rashes or allergic reaction to MPS, but this does seem to be a small minority based on forum reports. There should be no need to use MPS in an outdoor pool (or outdoor spa, if kept uncovered long enough) exposed to sunlight.

Ion systems and minerals are the same as far as my earlier discussion was concerned. Both produce metal ions (copper and silver) in the water. The only difference is in the method of production. Ideally, a system that regulates the metal ion concentration would be best, but mostly it's a waste of money since proper disinfection at very low chlorine levels can be achieved through the proper balance of Free Chlorine and Cyanuric Acid (CYA) alone. Nevertheless, for those who want the lowest possible chlorine level (and again, the scare tactics used by many in the industry are irresponsible and I've talked about what really goes on with indoor pools and asthma in other posts), then the use of algaecides (including PolyQuat 60 or copper) and disinfection catalysts (including silver) help to allow one to use a lower chlorine level. I'm not clear on whether enzymes would help chlorine disinfect the way that silver apparently does -- my guess is that they will not help since such enzymes won't make their way into cells easily the way that chlorine (hypochlorous acid) does -- that is, the enzymes help with oxidizing organics free-floating in the water and maybe a little with cell surface lipids, but probably not efficiently inactivating pathogens via disruption of internal cell processes.

Magnets are a complete and total waste of money. There is a lot of junk science in the marketplace. You can read about some of them here and here.

Richard

[D.P. Roberts]

Chemgeek,

Thanks for the response. Just to summarize, I'm planning on doing the following:

1) Start with dichlor until I establish a CYA "buffer" of 20 ppm, then switch to unscented Chlorox, aiming for 2-4 ppm FC

2) Keep a residual of MPS for oxidation

3) Keep my Nature 2 system for now (I already bought it), as silver ions may be "synergistic" as a catalyst in oxidation reactions with chlorine in killing bacteria

4) Monitor CC levels and shock with chlorine if they get too high

5) Skip the enzymes (which may work, but as of now have no evidence supporting them) and magnets (which don't work)

So I have only two questions left (I think) for you (or anyone else who can chime in):

1) Ideally, what levels of MPS should I attempt to maintain?

2) At what point should I shock to reduce CC? I know the main problems with CC are skin irritations & odor, so I may not need to shock unless I have problems, but I'm just curious.

[chem geek]

D.P.,

Your plan sounds great. Remember that I may be overly conservative with my 4 ppm with 20 ppm CYA combination, but it's certainly reasonable to try. And certainly you can use your silver ions since you've already bought it -- it doesn't have the side effects that copper ions can have since copper can precipitate and stain (at higher pH) or have blonde hair turn green.

I would use the recommended weekly MPS shock dose which I believe for pools is about 1 pound per 10,000 gallons so scale this down to spa size (about 0.8 ounces weight per 500 gallons) though given the higher bather load in a spa a somewhat higher dose may be needed. Though it would be nice to use the Taylor K-2041 to measure the MPS separate from true Combined Chlorine (CC), that seems like overkill. I would just wait at least 8 hours after shocking with MPS to measure Free and Combined Chlorine and keep in mind that a small Combined Chlorine measurement may be residual MPS. This is one of those areas that doesn't make a lot of sense even after talking to Dupont -- that is, how much MPS sticks around as a residual and if it does then why doesn't it show up as CC. As you've seen, users have reported that using MPS works for them, but the details of measurement, frequency of addition, etc. are still being worked out. And yes, the nasty CCs that smell a lot are chlorine combined with ammonia -- chlorine combined with other organics ranges from relatively innocuous to nastier trihalomethane.

Richard

[TinyBubbles]

Just to let you know, we left the tub for 5 days. I was a little concerned since we had only had it for a week. We returned home to crystal clear water. So, I guess I will stick with the routine I've been using. Dichlor after soaking, mps shocking and the N2 cartridge.