Low initial cost. Readily available, industry supported.
Health issues associated with its use include cancer, asthma, birth defects, pregnancy problems, heart problems, skin allergies and more.
Salt chlorination reduces cost and handling associated with conventional chlorine treatment, provides automated chlorination while pool equipment is running.
Requires on going expensive chemical back up including stabaliser, algaecides, floc"s, shock,..... exposure to high chlorine levels and associated health risks as detailed in Chlorine section above, hard to maintain correct residual chlorine level in conditions of high heat, sunlight and bather load. Only works when pump is running resulting in lengthy run times and high energy costs. Water is high in TDS"s, corrosive, brackish and cannot be recycled without dilution. Salt water can damage rocks features, pool surrounds, equipment and gardens.
Expensive to purchase, provides point of contact treatment only and has no residual protection for the bather, Ozone gas is very toxic, the ozone generator must be installed in a way that it will prevent the ozone gas getting into the main pool water. Ozone requires an additional residual sanitiser most commonly chlorine and its associated chemicals. Only works when pump is running. An expensive add on that should not be required if the residual sanitiser is maintained correctly.
There are many ioniser/oxidiser brands on the market including Ecosmarte, Bioniser, Eclear & Aquamatics. Enviroswim is often mistakenly regarded as a similar product. It is not; Enviroswim's patented technology is unique, uses a different methodology and is backed up by independent assurances.
Our tip...a little time spent researching products and asking suppliers for independent evidence & assurances that they will maintain your pool in a safe and reliable manner, is time well spent to help avoid disappointment later on.
Copper and Silver are un effected by heat and UV which makes it easy to maintain a residual level in pool water. The copper and silver ions continue to work as an algaecide and biocide in the pool water even when the equipment is turned off.
Ionisers do not oxidise the organic compounds in the pool such as oils, dust, urine they require a residual oxidiser usually chlorine to be added to the pool. Ionisers have got a reputation for staining some types of pool surfaces.
It is impossible to find any pros on these systems, as the methodology to date is scientifically proven to be an ineffective pool sanitising option by most health departments worldwide.
Products to date have not been laboratory tested to meet the APVMA efficacy test criteria as a satisfactory pool & spa sanitiser for use in Australia, details here . It is unlikely that hydrogen peroxide even when combined with silver could meet the required residual disinfectant criteria to ensure safe pool water and protect bathers from serious illness or worst. All previous scientific studies using ozone and hydrogen peroxide have proven hydrogen peroxide as a residual pool sanitiser to be ineffective.
Ozone whilst having a good disinfectant efficacy, only disinfects at point of contact and is very toxic; therefore no ozone residual must enter the pool bather area. This then leaves hydrogen peroxide as the only residual disinfectant protecting bathers. It is certainly unsafe and unproven and not recommended. Other issues associated with these systems are the high ongoing running costs of purchasing, dosing and handling hydrogen peroxide in large volumes. Hydrogen Peroxide is listed as a product of high concern by the government anti terrorists department due to its use by terrorists for bomb making.
Hydrogen Peroxide can also causes respiratory issues when used at concentrations high enough to provide a modicum of disinfectant in water. This not only contradicts but also highlights the hypocrisy of the Asthma Councils Sensitive Choice Mark issued to Waterco for their recently launched Hydroxypure system. The Sensitive Choice Mark is a paid endorsement giving exclusivity to one manufacturer effectively locking out all other manufacturers, regardless of the availability of better, safer products.
Whilst we welcome innovative competition, we have a problem with the Waterco hydroxypure system, a claimed "new invention" that in our opinion is being deceptively advertised as an "approved" new product without first completing the APVMA approval laboratory requirements link here to ensure the safe introduction of a "new" sanitising system. In our opinion the laboratory test is essential prior to allowing the trial in a children's water park on the Gold Coast.
The current trial is effectively using children as human guinea pigs. The available scientific data from Health Departments, CDC, EPA highlights the Hydroxypure methodology as unsatisfactory for safe pool disinfection. We believe the required safety nets are not being followed by Waterco before releasing the system to market.
We are currently in communication with the APVMA and the Gold Coast City Council who has denied any approval of the system other than allowing a trial based on assurances from the manufacturer! What assurances do they have to refute the current scientific data? The recent press releases issued by Waterco are in our opinion grossly deceiving and misleading for the uninitiated. We urge you to research all products before making any decision to avoid costly disappointment and risk to bathers.
Here are a few links on Ozone + Hydrogen Peroxide, read pages 52/53 on this link , Table 1 pg4 this link Vic Health Department link , NSW Health pg. 26 link.
We recently requested from the APVMA under their "Freedom of Information" process, the scientific data they are relying upon to support their approval of Hydrogen Peroxide & Chlorine as suitable pool & spa sanitisers that meet their recently published efficacy guidelines for new sanitisers. Their reply "The information does not exist". Read the decision report at this APVMA link dated 29th Aug 2014.
The APVMA have also stated that they take no responsibility for public health & safety or approval of the use of their registered pool sanitisers, that responsibility falls upon individual State Health Authorities. Given the recent response we believe the APVMA should now review the suitability and efficacy of all chlorine & hydrogen peroxide based registered chemical pool sanitisers.
also known as Baquacil, PHMB, known brand names Lo Chlor's Aquaspa & Aquafresh. Promoted as a chlorine free system, baquacil has been used for many years in small residential pools. It is not a very effective sanitiser and is not recommended for use in commercial pools or large residential pools.
Chlorine is not compatible and must not be used in with this system.
Copper and Silver are un effChlorine Free
Polyhexinide is currently under revue by the Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medical Authority (APVMA) due to carcinogenic (cancer causing) concerns with the chemical.
Polyhexinide can also cause anaphylactic shock; its use is banned in many parts of the world for this reason. It is also known to cause irritation & inflame allergies in pool water; see this link. A quick Google search on "baquacil problems" will highlight the issues to anyone considering using this method for sanitising swimming pools & spas.
Polyhexinide also requires Hydrogen Peroxide to be added to the pool at regular intervals as an active oxidiser, therefore adding to the ongoing running costs and handling of dangerous chemicals.
Eliminates the need to purchase, handle or add liquid chlorine, granular chlorine, non-chlorine oxidiser, hydrogen peroxide, Aquabrite, Pool Fresh, Aquaspa, Aquafresh stabaliser (cyanuric acid see chlorine section above), algaecides & flocculent.
Reduces energy costs, chemical costs, chemical handling, exposure to toxic/carcinogenic by products associated with chlorine and cyanuric acid. Pool water/backwash can be used undiluted on gardens and does not attack rock features and copings.
Enviroswim provides a return on investment through low running costs, together with health and environmental benefits. Government supported development, meets NSF standard 50 as a stand-alone sanitiser.
Initial cost is higher than some other methods. Chemically driven industry can be reluctant to endorse the system due to the low on going chemical revenue after installing the system.