Jump to content

Which Dichlor To Use?


TinyBubbles

Recommended Posts

The reason that we void out the warranty for non-spa-formulated water care products is from results of their use. When we see a cover where the bottom vinyl is completely oxidized, it is usually the result of way too much or the wrong chemicals. In a pool, there's no cover so whatever needs to gas off does at no expense and with no concern to the pool owner. However, many times when trichlor or liquid chlorine shock is introduced to a spa, the cover is replaced before the gassing off can completely occur. This does A LOT of damage. Even when using MPS, we recommend that the cover stay off for 15-30 minutes while you run the jets. Trichlor, as chem geek I believe has mentioned in previous threads, has no place in a spa. It's too potent. The jury is out on bleach since no one has ever really addressed it. I think, it does some good from a chemistry standpoint, but owners replace their covers too quickly after using it not to damage the cover.

If you decide on using a liquid chlorine to shock for the many fine "chemisty" reasons that chem geek has kindly pointed out in sharing his knowledge with us, then at least leave the cover off at least 30-45 minutes after doing so. But also don't be surprised if your cover's warranty becomes voided, because let's face it, spa owners aren't leaving the cover off for 45 minutes when it's 20 degrees outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can write a warranty any way you like, but you are not doing so with an understanding of chemistry if you only allow some chlorine sources and not others. You should be specifying specific water parameters such as pH, Free Chlorine (FC) and Cyanuric Acid (CYA) since pH and disinfecting chlorine levels are what would be most important with regard to the life of a cover. The fact that chlorine came from Dichlor vs. bleach is completely and totally irrelevant.

What exactly do you mean by "formulated for spas"? Is this something some manufacturer told you and if so, who? I've called manufacturers on this sort of thing before and would be happy to get them to clarify this for you.

Richard

I don't mean to be disagreeable with you, but you aren't educating these people of the gas-off effects. I am simply pointing out that since every spa owner has a cover, they should know what they're getting into by using liquid chlorine. And our warranty is written from 25 years of experience of seeing what destroys spa covers before their functional life should end.

Frankly, I have a lot of faith in companies that have been tackling spa water care for decades. If they felt a liquid chlorine shock should be repackaged and sold for spas, they would do it. You know they do it now with baking soda so you can't say they wouldn't just because Chlorox is a cheaper alternative.

You have a lot of chemistry knowledge, that's apparent. However, from your own admission, you don't own a spa and have never tested your techniques on spa water. I am not saying what you say is incorrect. In fact, I believe you 100%. But you have to acknowledge all of the functional realities that spa owners face when they are chosing a spa water care program. In our opinion, liquid chlorine shock presents a functional problem for spa owners because they are not going to leave the cover off long enough for gas-off, especially when it's cold outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are now comparing something quite different from what we were talking about. We weren't talking about what kind of product to use for shocking. We were talking about what type of chlorine to use for regular chlorine dosing -- that is, every day dosing.

What you are now comparing is shocking with chlorine (of ANY type) vs. a non-chlorine shock such as Potassium Monopersulfate (MPS). That is a completely different discussion. The "gas-off" you are talking about is that if you shock with chlorine, then you want to leave the cover off long enough for chloramines, nitrogen and other byproducts to outgas from the water. And such chloramines can be damaging to the cover if left on. Using a non-chlorine shock (MPS) will also result in "gas-off", but mostly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide gasses and therefore should not be damaging to a cover. I agree with you about that, but that's not what we were talking about.

The other thing I said is that you don't want to use only bleach because then the disinfecting chlorine level will be too strong. And yes, the outgassing of such chlorine could damage a cover. So that is why one wants at least some Cyanuric Acid (CYA) in the water since that reduces the disinfecting chlorine concentration and thereby reduces the outgassed chlorine concentration as well. Using Dichlor first and then switching to bleach gives the best compromise of having enough chlorine to kill hot tub itch bacteria while not overdosing on it which would be harmful to covers, swimsuits, etc. But this has nothing to do with formulation. This has only to do with water chemistry parameters (e.g. Free Chlorine and Cyanuric Acid). Bleach and Dichlor produce identical chlorine -- it's just that Dichlor also adds to Cyanuric Acid so can be seen as a "combo" product. You could also buy pure Cyanuric Acid and add that with bleach (not together in concentrated form, but one after the other in the water) and this produces identical results to using Dichlor (except for some extra salt from the bleach).

The reason that pool and spa companies package the raw chemicals, such as Sodium Bicarbonate which is Baking Soda, into branded products is so that they can charge more for them, not because they have to be "formulated". There is no special "formulation" in a pool or spa Alkalinity Up product or with most of the products I described (the exception being the chlorine Smart Sticks). Some pool or spa products are combination products, even if they don't say so. For example, some chlorine packaging contains copper as an algaecide, but by not telling pool owners that, they end up with green pools if the pH gets high.

So other than bringing up the point about shocking with a non-chlorine shock (MPS) instead of with chlorine, is there any other formulated product you say has to be used otherwise it is bad for covers? I do appreciate your reminding people to keep the covers off if they use chlorine for shocking. That is standard advice for pools as well -- always have good airflow when shocking a pool or spa. It only takes a few hours for the shocking to get near completion. In the case of ammonia and the formation of chloramines, breakpoint is over 90% complete after 1 hour with a pH of 7.5, FC of 4 ppm and CYA of 20 ppm. However, if someone used only Dichlor and got their CYA level to 150 ppm (with the same 4 ppm FC), then after 1 hour breakpoint is only 9% complete. Even after 7 hours, breakpoint is only 50% complete.

The bottom line is that using bleach alone is bad because the disinfecting chlorine (hypochlorous acid) concentration is too high and that will degrade swimsuits, be harsh on skin and hair, outgas chlorine more, and produce more dichloramine and nitrogen trichloride which smell awful and are health concerns. On the other hand, using only Dichlor results after a month or so in too little disinfecting chlorine risking hot tub itch and slowing breakpoint so that monochloramine will outgas more and can damage covers. So the ideal is to have the right amount of Cyanuric Acid which you can get if you use Dichlor for a week (maybe two) and then switch to bleach.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I do not own a spa, I do have a cover on my pool -- an electric opaque safety cover. I only use chlorinating liquid in my pool and the pH never varies. The warranty on the cover is 7 years, but only fully covered to 3 years and then pro-rated after that. For bubble-type covers, people usually only get 3 years of use out of them. If you've got an oxidizer in your pool or spa and that water touches the cover, the cover will deteriorate over time unless the cover is designed to resist degradation from chlorine oxidation.

But what I have in my pool isn't really relevant since it's what happens in a large number of pools and spas that matters. If you want to say that people don't maintain proper water chemistry when using Trichlor because it ends up making the water too acidic too quickly, that's fine, but it's not true to say that Trichlor produces any different sort of chlorine than another source. With bleach, the main problem will be a tendency for the pH to rise due to the outgassing of carbon dioxide without an acidic chlorine to compensate for that. Lowering the TA helps to mitigate that problem. Using Borates as an alternative pH buffer also helps.

If it weren't for the fact that Dichlor adds to CYA so over time the disinfection level in the spa continues to drop, then I wouldn't be bringing up the bleach alternative, but it's not one OR the other, but rather a combination of both that I recommend -- Dichlor first to build up the CYA, then bleach to maintain chlorine but keeping the CYA constant. I recommend using a regular non-chlorine shock (MPS) to oxidize organics and ammonia before chlorine gets a chance to. This helps extend the life of chlorine and reduces chloramines that would outgas.

What is your experience with cover deterioration with different sanitation sources -- chlorine, bromine and Baqua/biguanide/PHMB? I would guess that chlorine is the most harsh, then bromine, and then Baqua/biguanide/PHMB but is that what you see? The order is because the bromine may outgas less and is certainly less strong an oxidizer. I don't believe the Baqua/biguanide/PHMB outgasses.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on your latest reply, I would totally agree with what you are saying. But you need to acknowledge that spa owners reading your information are going to do exactly what you say because you know the chemistry behind it, even if they don't understand it themselves. I've been reading your posts and the replies to them. For the most part, people are latching onto the use of liquid chlorine instead of MPS to counteract the less-effectiveness of chlorine with higher CYA levels because it is MUCH cheaper. I hated to rain on the parade, but liquid chlorine instead of MPS along with the functional reality of spa owners not wanting to leave their covers off long enough because they are losing heat from an uncovered spa in the dead of winter is not what is good for their cover. Take the cover out of the equation, I would be right there on the liquid chlorine bandwagon. But it does too much damage than it's worth.

People need to remember why they replace spa covers: because they get too heavy from water vapor displacing the air in between the beads of EPS foam. In a normal spa environment, the covered hot water creates a pressure that will drive the water vapor into the EPS foam. If one were to put a raw piece of EPS over their spa, it would waterlog in approximately 2-4 months regardless of its density. Obviously, we as spa cover manufacturers, cannot have our products only lasting 4 months so we put "protective layers" around the foam core to stave off the water absorption. Over time, the chemicals that you put into your spa to sanitize the water, including the generation of ozone, gasses off and begins to deteriorate these protective layers. Eventually, they become pourous and the water absorption process takes place. It is in our and our customers' best interest to educate our customers on the spa water care products that allow for 100% safe water while also choosing some products over others because of reduced side effects to our product's lifespan. That's where our warranty comes in. If there is an expected lifespan of a cover based on the use of some products that are responsible to recommend for complete spa water sanitation and others that still sanitize but accelerate the degradation of our product, it behooves us to exclude the use of those other products.

As for "spa-formulated" products, this is us relying on the spa water care industry's research and knowledge for providing products that are compatible with spas and their accessories. That is the bar that we design our covers to. We could put a 15 year warranty on our covers if we excluded all use of sanitizers and oxidizers in the water. But that would be irresponsible. We are obligated to design our cover to be used in an environment that includes responsible spa water sanitation and water care. The "spa-formulated" products are that standard. It's what most people use. Now, we are never going to exclude a warranty claim because someone uses baking soda because the spa chemical industry repackages that product. However, to my knowledge, no one repackages liquid chlorine/bleach for use in spas. Right now, it is not a "spa-formulated" product. I will admit though, because of our experience with liquid chlorine as a shock in relation to our covers, we will still exclude its use if it were to be repackaged as a spa product.

I admit, I have been thoroughly educated by your contributions and I think that I speak for a lot of people here when I thank you for the time you routinely spend on getting information in the hands of the rest of us who can only try to keep up with your vast knowledge on the subject of chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "used properly", you're list of harshest to least harsh is correct: chlorine, bromine, biguanide. However, because most people never really get a handle on the bromine floater thing and usually end up with too much bromine in the water, we see chlorine and bromine as a toss-up. Dichlor is easier to control and not overdose.

Though biguanide is #1 on our list of recommended sanitizing methods, we only recommend it for the very attentive spa owners. Frankly, most spa owners don't pay enough attention to their water to make a biguanide system not turn to goo.

Our list of recommended spa water care based on our experience of how they interact with our spa covers:

1. Biguanides

2. Nature2 stick + MPS dosing + dichlor shocking

(we like N2 over Frog because it tends to be a higher quality residual in the water)

3. ecoONE + dichlor shocking

4. Bromine liquid salts activated by MPS (Renew+Reserve system or equivalent)

5. Frog + dichlor or bromine + MPS shocking

6t. Dichlor dosing + MPS shocking

6t. Bromine dosing through floater + MPS shocking

We don't say that these are in order of water sanitation effectiveness, just how they interact with our covers along with being an accepted form of spa water care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people thought I was saying to shock with chlorine instead of MPS, then I wrote that poorly since that's not at all what I was proposing. MPS in a spa or hot tub makes a lot of sense and I thought that's what I was saying. I thought I had only said that it didn't make much sense to use in an outdoor pool exposed to sunlight since sunlight breaks down combined chlorine. I think the only time I said to shock using chlorine was if there were still persistent combined chlorine even though one used MPS regularly. I agree that a reminder for keeping the cover off during such shocking is wise and I forgot to mention that.

The reason no one repackages liquid chlorine or bleach for spas is that there is not nearly as much money to be made in it relative to the other products. Even for pools, there are states where you cannot buy chlorinating liquid in pool stores. Unless chlorinating liquid is generated locally, it is expensive to transport and must be sold in large enough volumes so that it won't degrade. The degradation is far slower with bleach since it is less concentrated, but bleach is, well, bleach so repackaging it would be a challenge. I suppose if someone came up with a splash-less version, that would be good, but usually that means having additives that you don't want in the spa or a pool, for that matter. By the way, different manufacturers make the stabilized chlorine products that contain CYA, namely Trichlor and Dichlor (e.g. Oxy Chemical --> Chemtura BioGuard/SpaGuard, Advantis GLB/Leisure Time/Robarb) than the ones that make bleach and chlorinating liquid (e.g. Clorox, Hasa, Odyssey) and that make Cal-Hypo (Arch Chemical HTH). These manufacturers compete with each other, but the bleach guys aren't trying to go after the spa market since it's so small in volume of product. With Dichlor, the profit margin is high enough to make decent money even with the lower quantities that are used.

Thanks for the compliment and thank you for making sure the information is complete and most important that it relates to real-world experiences. Just don't trust the manufacturers as much as you are doing. I used to, but after what I and others have experienced, I don't anymore. There is too much deceit for there to be trust (that doesn't mean I've stopped communicating -- only that I'm more wary). The whole mantra that "CYA doesn't matter; only FC matters" has caused more pools to develop algae than any other piece of misinformation and its only done so that more profitable stabilized chlorine can be sold along with algaecides and pool care systems. I've contacted some of these manufacturers and tried to reason with them and though they acknowledge and understand the chemistry involved, they either say it doesn't apply to real-world pools (see this link for my discussion of the main study they use) or that the jury is still out. Even the CDC says that chlorine disinfection is affected by CYA, but they don't quantify by how much and don't acknowledge that indoor pools without CYA are essentially overdosed with disinfecting chlorine. I'm in communication with them, but I just don't think there is going to be very fast movement on these issues, but I will not give up trying. My wife's swimsuits degrade after one season of swimming in the indoor community pool with no CYA while in our own outdoor pool with CYA there is no degradation whatsoever (only very slight after 4 years). She's had breast cancer so I am concerned for her health and I know that the indoor pool has way more chlorine disinfection byproducts than it would have if some CYA were used -- I've modeled this and read patents where this has been measured for related chemicals (glycoluril), but am still trying to get some organizations to try this with CYA. We'll see...

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "used properly", you're list of harshest to least harsh is correct: chlorine, bromine, biguanide. However, because most people never really get a handle on the bromine floater thing and usually end up with too much bromine in the water, we see chlorine and bromine as a toss-up. Dichlor is easier to control and not overdose.

Though biguanide is #1 on our list of recommended sanitizing methods, we only recommend it for the very attentive spa owners. Frankly, most spa owners don't pay enough attention to their water to make a biguanide system not turn to goo.

Our list of recommended spa water care based on our experience of how they interact with our spa covers:

1. Biguanides

2. Nature2 stick + MPS dosing + dichlor shocking

(we like N2 over Frog because it tends to be a higher quality residual in the water)

3. ecoONE + dichlor shocking

4. Bromine liquid salts activated by MPS (Renew+Reserve system or equivalent)

5. Frog + dichlor or bromine + MPS shocking

6t. Dichlor dosing + MPS shocking

6t. Bromine dosing through floater + MPS shocking

We don't say that these are in order of water sanitation effectiveness, just how they interact with our covers along with being an accepted form of spa water care.

Not surprisingly, the order of your list roughly corresponds to the level of outgassed oxidation power in terms of long-term exposure. Using Dichlor only for shocking (if the cover is kept off for some time after shocking in order to allow outgassing) then the chlorine level will go to near-zero after a few days (probably 2-3). Though MPS dosing will oxidize organics, the spa is not sanitized with a fast-acting sanitizer during at least part of each week. Using Dichlor for dosing gives the most continual exposure to chlorine, but is the only way to have the spa disinfected properly every day.

I would expect that my proposal of Dichlor dosing + MPS shocking initially and then switching to Bleach dosing + MPS shocking would be like an item 7 in your list -- somewhat harsher over a 3-month water cycle in a hot tub of spa. However, it's hard to know for sure and it could be similar to 6 or even better because it depends on the relative effects of outgassed hypochlorous acid compared to outgassed monochloramine with regard to your covers. My approach would have more of the former (over time) and very little of the latter while the Dichlor only method would be the opposite (after the first month). Based on oxidation power alone, the hypochlorous acid is more powerful, but the equilibrium concentration in the air above 4 ppm FC, 20 ppm CYA water is about 0.2 ppb (parts per billion). If there is a residual of MPS, then the amount of monochloramine should be low, but this is where it gets dicey since there are a bunch of factors that come into play. Monochloramine levels are around 38 ppb in the air if there is 0.05 ppm ammonia (as ppm Nitrogen) introduced into the water.

The use of metal ions, such as N2, if they included silver would let one use a lower chlorine level so that's more like your item 5. So combining my proposal with a silver ion (and going up to 40-60 ppm CYA instead of 20 ppm CYA) would probably be the best compromise of disinfection and cover life -- at least for chlorine.

Since the bulk of the cover cost is its overall construction, but the part that degrades are the chemicals that keep the foam from absorbing water, you might consider having a non-pourous plastic sheet cover or part that is removable or replaceable every so often. That should be less expensive than the entire cover and would stabilize your revenues through more frequent, but less expensive, replacement parts. It's somewhat of a win-win since you get a more stable revenue stream and it should be more cost effective for users -- but your total revenue would go down unless you did this before competitors and gained market share. Of course, I'm not a fabricator so this might not be practical.

By the way, the most resistant organic materials to chlorine are fully saturated hydrocarbons (aka Alkanes). Chlorine oxidizes compounds that have nitrogen sites fastest and then unsaturated (i.e. double-bond or triple-bond) hydrocarbons. Such saturated lipids (fats) are what coat the cells of Cyrptosporidium cysts and are what make them rather resistant to chlorine. Unfortunately, it's hard to find material like that -- if graphite were more solid, it would work, and of course diamond would work but would be ridiculously expensive (even diamond dust) -- though certain oils and waxes would work (they just don't tend to be very hard).

It seems odd that my pool cover and even bubble pack pool covers can last for 3 years touching chlorinated water while the spa covers that are only exposed to the gasses at far lower concentrations degrade more quickly. Condensation of water vapor could concentrate the chlorine, but at equilibrium, the chlorine on the cover would be the same as that in the bulk spa water so again, I'd expect up to a 3 year life if the covers were similar. I'm obviously missing something. I'm guessing that the condensed and relatively unbuffered water combined with hypochlorous acid becomes acidic and that it is the low pH that is more destructive than even the chlorine itself. If that is the case, then making the cover resistant to low pH would be at least as important as having it be resistant to chlorine. Also, if there were a way to buffer the condensed water, then the pH would remain more stable, but I can't think of an easy way to do that automatically via a cover material -- unless you had some sort of leeching bicarbonate or similar buffer.

Ironically, if you designed the hot tub so that the cover dropped until it touched the water, then you would minimize the above-mentioned problem. Of course, you would then be eliminating a gas layer that offered some heat insulation, but I'll bet your foam is far more insulating than the air gap so that producing a spa cover that dropped to water level might be worth it. At least it's something to think about.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "used properly", you're list of harshest to least harsh is correct: chlorine, bromine, biguanide. However, because most people never really get a handle on the bromine floater thing and usually end up with too much bromine in the water, we see chlorine and bromine as a toss-up. Dichlor is easier to control and not overdose.

Though biguanide is #1 on our list of recommended sanitizing methods, we only recommend it for the very attentive spa owners. Frankly, most spa owners don't pay enough attention to their water to make a biguanide system not turn to goo.

Our list of recommended spa water care based on our experience of how they interact with our spa covers:

1. Biguanides

2. Nature2 stick + MPS dosing + dichlor shocking

(we like N2 over Frog because it tends to be a higher quality residual in the water)

3. ecoONE + dichlor shocking

4. Bromine liquid salts activated by MPS (Renew+Reserve system or equivalent)

5. Frog + dichlor or bromine + MPS shocking

6t. Dichlor dosing + MPS shocking

6t. Bromine dosing through floater + MPS shocking

We don't say that these are in order of water sanitation effectiveness, just how they interact with our covers along with being an accepted form of spa water care.

Not surprisingly, the order of your list roughly corresponds to the level of outgassed oxidation power in terms of long-term exposure. Using Dichlor only for shocking (if the cover is kept off for some time after shocking in order to allow outgassing) then the chlorine level will go to near-zero after a few days (probably 2-3). Though MPS dosing will oxidize organics, the spa is not sanitized with a fast-acting sanitizer during at least part of each week. Using Dichlor for dosing gives the most continual exposure to chlorine, but is the only way to have the spa disinfected properly every day.

I would expect that my proposal of Dichlor dosing + MPS shocking initially and then switching to Bleach dosing + MPS shocking would be like an item 7 in your list -- somewhat harsher over a 3-month water cycle in a hot tub of spa. However, it's hard to know for sure and it could be similar to 6 or even better because it depends on the relative effects of outgassed hypochlorous acid compared to outgassed monochloramine with regard to your covers. My approach would have more of the former (over time) and very little of the latter while the Dichlor only method would be the opposite (after the first month). Based on oxidation power alone, the hypochlorous acid is more powerful, but the equilibrium concentration in the air above 4 ppm FC, 20 ppm CYA water is about 0.2 ppb (parts per billion). If there is a residual of MPS, then the amount of monochloramine should be low, but this is where it gets dicey since there are a bunch of factors that come into play. Monochloramine levels are around 38 ppb in the air if there is 0.05 ppm ammonia (as ppm Nitrogen) introduced into the water.

The use of metal ions, such as N2, if they included silver would let one use a lower chlorine level so that's more like your item 5. So combining my proposal with a silver ion (and going up to 40-60 ppm CYA instead of 20 ppm CYA) would probably be the best compromise of disinfection and cover life -- at least for chlorine.

Since the bulk of the cover cost is its overall construction, but the part that degrades are the chemicals that keep the foam from absorbing water, you might consider having a non-pourous plastic sheet cover or part that is removable or replaceable every so often. That should be less expensive than the entire cover and would stabilize your revenues through more frequent, but less expensive, replacement parts. It's somewhat of a win-win since you get a more stable revenue stream and it should be more cost effective for users -- but your total revenue would go down unless you did this before competitors and gained market share. Of course, I'm not a fabricator so this might not be practical.

By the way, the most resistant organic materials to chlorine are fully saturated hydrocarbons (aka Alkanes). Chlorine oxidizes compounds that have nitrogen sites fastest and then unsaturated (i.e. double-bond or triple-bond) hydrocarbons. Such saturated lipids (fats) are what coat the cells of Cyrptosporidium cysts and are what make them rather resistant to chlorine. Unfortunately, it's hard to find material like that -- if graphite were more solid, it would work, and of course diamond would work but would be ridiculously expensive (even diamond dust) -- though certain oils and waxes would work (they just don't tend to be very hard).

It seems odd that my pool cover and even bubble pack pool covers can last for 3 years touching chlorinated water while the spa covers that are only exposed to the gasses at far lower concentrations degrade more quickly. Condensation of water vapor could concentrate the chlorine, but at equilibrium, the chlorine on the cover would be the same as that in the bulk spa water so again, I'd expect up to a 3 year life if the covers were similar. I'm obviously missing something. I'm guessing that the condensed and relatively unbuffered water combined with hypochlorous acid becomes acidic and that it is the low pH that is more destructive than even the chlorine itself. If that is the case, then making the cover resistant to low pH would be at least as important as having it be resistant to chlorine. Also, if there were a way to buffer the condensed water, then the pH would remain more stable, but I can't think of an easy way to do that automatically via a cover material -- unless you had some sort of leeching bicarbonate or similar buffer.

Ironically, if you designed the hot tub so that the cover dropped until it touched the water, then you would minimize the above-mentioned problem. Of course, you would then be eliminating a gas layer that offered some heat insulation, but I'll bet your foam is far more insulating than the air gap so that producing a spa cover that dropped to water level might be worth it. At least it's something to think about.

Richard

Richard, I find it frustrating that pool and spa owners will not look at alternative products that can essentially do the same things that we Joe/Jane Consumer is paying more money simply because the words pool or spa is on the packaging. I've read before that unscented Clorox was a good chlorine source but wasn't sure how to apply it to 10000 gallons of water, so I stuck with what I was taught when I purchased my pool and trial and error. Now that I've purchased a tub the challenge for great tub water is exciting. I started another thread on Aroma Therapy to see the benefits and to get suggestins on what was being used. So far the results have been interesting but I noticed that some alluded to only using products that are "Spa Specific". Not to change the scope of this thread, but my humble research has found many products that actually seem better then the so called "Spa Specific" products and much less expensive. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, thank you very much for your info. Companies would have to pay a nice fee for the report you just gave. The one thing you are probably "missing" as you say, is that failure on a floating pool/spa cover and failure on the protective wrap of a spa cover foam core are at different lifepoints. The floating pool/spa cover is still effective until it basically comes apart. The protective wrap may still keep its shape, but become porous which would be a failure level.

We actually take this into account when selecting PE for the wrap. Some companies use high density PE because its vapor-penetration resistance is a little better than the linear low-density PE that we use. However, under the conditions of a spa, the high-density PE will shatter when it reaches failure whereas the linear low-density degrades gracefully never losing its shape in the cover's lifespan. The difference is that when high density PE reaches failure, it is dropping pieces of plastic film into the spa and offering zero barrier. The linear low density PE does become porous and reach a failure point, but does not drop film into the water and continues to offer some, albeit little, continued barrier.

A replaceable vapor barrier would be a very marketable item for people looking to add life to their spa cover. There would be a "not able to seal on-site" issue, but if changed yearly, the fact that the seal were taped instead of sealed may be able to be mitigated. We began offering double-wrapped foam cores as an option about 10 years ago. Most people would probably prefer to have the "extra" layers installed up front to avoid periodic refitting.

We have always told our customers that anyone can build a good cover if they try. It's a function of materials and craftsmanship. The better (and more) layers you have between the water and the foam core, the longer the cover will last.

I apologize that this thread got highjacked into a cover discussion. I actually think that Tiny's original question about 99% dichlor vs. the enhanced shock (combo of MPS, dichlor and others) is a good one. The dealers that we deal with have tended to position enhanced shock as an alternative to MPS, not necessarily to dichlor. I know that years ago a number of dealers that sold Nature2 recommended the SpaGuard Enhanced Shock (dichlor+MPS) over straight MPS. Not sure if this is still the case with N2 changing its formulation a couple of years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a spa cover manufacturer, I thought I would add a bit to your discussion about which dichlor to use. In almost all cases, if you use a chlorine/sanitizer product that is not specifically formulated for use in spas, you will void your cover's warranty. Other component manufacturers may take similiar stances. Be very careful when you choose your chlorine. I am not aware of any liquid chlorine product that is formulated for spas with the possible exception of Sanygen.

I must admit that I am a bit confused by people referring to a 99% spa chlorine product. Tiny - what was the brand and name of the 99% straight sanitizer product? Was it formulated for spas?

Yes, both were specifically formulated for spas. One is spa 56, the other is by spa essentials. I am only referring to the list of ingredients, not the amount of free chlorine. I was confused when I posted the original question, and since then, read the bottle and realized it had alot of "fillers" in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggz, I wanted to mention that my dealer came out for my orientation Friday. They were shocked at how my water looked. The guy originally said, "oh, I see this isn't your first spa". I told him it was and he said "oh, well you've owned a pool in the past". I said "nope". He said "you've had the spa 2 weeks and you've been using it?". I told him we've been using it every day and twice on weekends. He couldn't believe how clear and bright the water was. I gave myself a big pat on the back for coming here to learn. He said it makes a huge difference to get things right from the very beginning. Also, how come you don't add the chlorine right after you soak? That way, you kill the germies before they have time to multiply and your levels will be super low the next day when you soak, so no chlorine smell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggz, I wanted to mention that my dealer came out for my orientation Friday. They were shocked at how my water looked. The guy originally said, "oh, I see this isn't your first spa". I told him it was and he said "oh, well you've owned a pool in the past". I said "nope". He said "you've had the spa 2 weeks and you've been using it?". I told him we've been using it every day and twice on weekends. He couldn't believe how clear and bright the water was. I gave myself a big pat on the back for coming here to learn. He said it makes a huge difference to get things right from the very beginning. Also, how come you don't add the chlorine right after you soak? That way, you kill the germies before they have time to multiply and your levels will be super low the next day when you soak, so no chlorine smell.

'TinyBubbles', Good day Tiny, It's nice to hear the reaction from the experts were favorable. The information offered on this site is extremely valuable. The forum sometimes has bitter debates regarding this and that but in the end at least a reader will have several opinions to draw on. After discussing the use of Dichlor or liquid chlorine/ bleach with Richard (Chem Geek) I too asked myself the question why add chlorine in the afternoon and not after the soak. I found the error in my decision and decided to add directly after the soak. :D The tub is already open and functioning so this approach is more logical. I'm keeping the tub at 1-3 ppm for safety purposes and have tried some great salt based aroma products that appear to be more beneficial and much less expensive than the spa specific aroma products. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you get a chance, share the info. on the aromatherapy salts. I tried a liquid product over the weekend and the scent disappeared the moment it hit the water.

'TinyBubbles' , Hi Tiny use the link on this thread to get an idea of the benefits of salt soaks.

http://www.poolspaforum.com/forum/index.ph...rt=0#entry41578

After reading that over the weekend I'm really excited about soaking. Ohhhh the health benefits. :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my bathtub, I love to use homemade "bath bombs" which are a mixture of baking soda, borax, epsom salt, essential oils, and fragrance. I would love to make gigantic bath bombs for the spa, but besides being costly, I'm sure they would clog the filters and effect water quality. My new project is going to be figuring out exactly what is in aromatherapy stuff they sell for spas and seeing how I can make them myself. I'm sure that anything they sell for $13 a bottle, I could make for pennies on the dollar. Plus, I just love being crafty! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my bathtub, I love to use homemade "bath bombs" which are a mixture of baking soda, borax, epsom salt, essential oils, and fragrance. I would love to make gigantic bath bombs for the spa, but besides being costly, I'm sure they would clog the filters and effect water quality. My new project is going to be figuring out exactly what is in aromatherapy stuff they sell for spas and seeing how I can make them myself. I'm sure that anything they sell for $13 a bottle, I could make for pennies on the dollar. Plus, I just love being crafty! ;)

'TinyBubbles', That's what I'm talking about. The fragrances that are spa specific only seem to mask the smell of the chemicals, but don't clearly explain the process to acheive the claims of "Energy" or "Cool" as their names suggest. The prices are not cheap if you want a variety of scents either. I do believe there are other lesser known products made for an entirely different industry that offer produces that will award the user with the same masking effects and still provide additional health benefits for a more reasonable price. I bought my tub for the health benefits in addition to social entertainment. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post here for more info on the use of salts and oils, etc. As for the health benefits promoted on that site that was linked to in the earlier post, this isn't science. You have to have double-blind field studies to truly isolate affects of medicines or therapies. There is a placebo effect which interferes in any therapy that is promoted to improve health and this will appear as beneficial when in fact it's just a psychological effect.

I won't get into a point-by-point analysis of the claims on that website. Having saltier water feels better and I think that's enough. Epsom salt may have some unique effect due to the magnesium and sulfate that absorbs (somewhat) through the skin. This link to an industry website (i.e. take this with a grain of salt, so to speak) gives the primary benefits to Epsom salt. I'd rather see quantitative analysis of magnesium and sulfate absorption from normal food consumption vs. soaking in Epsom salt at various levels -- if anyone can find studies of that, let me know and I'll take a look.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, that makes more sense. The ozonator should help break down organics, though it won't do so as quickly as non-chlorine shock since the water has to get circulated through the ozonator, but that's not a big deal. It just means that you might smell some monochloramine which forms very quickly and that hadn't yet passed through the ozonator. If you had a residual of non-chlorine shock (MPS) instead, then you might not get as much monochloramine formation. Monochloramine is what most people smell as the "bad smell" of chlorine -- it's not like the "clean" smell of chlorine bleach. It's chlorine combined with ammonia. There are other chloramines that can form (dichloramine and nitrogen trichloride) and these smell even worse, but these are minimally formed at normal pH and with low chlorine levels (FC/CYA ratio), but with your ozonator and fast circulation, these latter chloramines are probably not getting created to any significant extent as they form more slowly.

If you use a higher chlorine level and want to reduce the smell, just be sure to uncover the spa for at least 10 minutes to air it out before you get in. Most of the issues with smell have to do with the chlorine that builds up under the cover. Also, remember the FC/CYA ratio. The true amount of disinfecting chlorine (hypochlorous acid) which is the only one that disinfects, oxidizes, and smells like chlorine bleach is proportional to the FC/CYA ratio. So keeping the chlorine low doesn't have to be done only by keeping the FC low. You can also accomplish the same thing by having the CYA higher. For whatever amount of Dichlor you add that increases the FC by 1.0 ppm, it will also increase CYA by 0.9 ppm.

My very conservative recommendation to avoid hot tub itch is an FC/CYA ratio of 0.2 (e.g. 4 ppm FC with 20 ppm CYA), but as I've said before, that may be overly conservative. Your ozonator should help kill the hot tub itch bacteria as long as its not stuck in a biofilm on a spa surface.

Richard

As a newbie, what product (test strip brand) do you recommend to measure this and the other water conditions (PH, Alk, etc)?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a newbie, what product (test strip brand) do you recommend to measure this and the other water conditions (PH, Alk, etc)?

Except for measuring salt and borates, most test strips are not accurate. The best and most complete test kit is the Taylor K-2006 which may be purchased from Taylor here or from Leslie's here or from poolcenter.com here. An even better value that is based on the same kit (uses the same reagents) is the TF100 at tftestkits.com here where you get 36% more in the number of tests for roughly the same price as the others (i.e. the reagent bottle sizes are mostly larger 1 oz instead of 0.75 oz). I describe more about the TF100 contents here.

These test kits will measure Free Chlorine, Combined Chlorine, Total Chlorine/Bromine, pH, Total Alkalinity (TA), Calcium Hardness (CH) and Cyanuric Acid (CYA). For most hot tubs or spas, you don't need to measure the CH except initially after a fill (the exception is if you have a plaster spa or have tile with grout exposed to the water). They aren't cheap, but they should last for about 2 years of testing unless you test very frequently. Once you get into a routine and have an idea of how things go, then you probably will not test every day, but at least once or twice a week -- for the chlorine test, at least.

Now that said, it is still better to test with the test strips than to not test at all.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...