www.swimmingpoolnews.co.uk
WaterTreatment FEB 2011 SPN
79
Chlorine is still the most accepted sanitiser and it remains a strong favourite in the domestic pool and hot tub market. But owners and larger commercial pool managers, worried about allergic reactions, want to know more about the emerging alternatives
T
he fact that chlorine is still the most popular and traditional method to guarantee clear, safe, bacteria free water to swim in shouldn’t surprise
many people, and that’s despite research which continues to raise concerns about it, its smell, the possibility of allergic reactions and its generally bad press in recent years.
The way to keep your pool clean and hygienic used to be straightforward. You put in chlorine and that was it. You needed to be careful about the quantity but it was a pretty straight forward option. Chlorine might not smell so great, might not be very good for the environment and it very often caused problems for your eyes but it did a good job in killing bacteria in pools and spas. But now the picture may be changing. There are a lot of non-traditional, low or non- chlorine treatments emerging as options for the pool and hot tub owners to consider but these still have questions surrounding them, and very few are endorsed by the Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group (PWTAG), the leading trade association SPATA, or any of the other recognised bodies. The bottom line from them so far is that chemicals are the only option to have proven results. So they remain big business and there are over 80 specialist traditional or online major suppliers of chemical products, all battling away for a share of the significant market. Within this sector there’s a lot of brand loyalty to a particular chemical or system.
As one Hampshire pool retailer told us: “We sell a lot of chemicals to the domestic market and people generally know and understand it and I don’t believe there’s any concern about chlorine. We have other customers, certainly a couple of local hotels where we have been asked to supply alternatives and we have done.”
The view of many in the industry is that the domestic pool owner has few concerns about chlorine or any potential link with asthma or allergies. Chlorine works, it kills bacteria quickly and is effective at low concentrations so the pool owner is happy it’s a system that works. The issue changes with commercial or local authority pools.
By Alan Lewis
The Aligator Swimming Pool Water Purification System makes a point of stressing its benefits to allergy sufferers. It now is a system which has a loyal following
Bigger pools have some options to reduce organic contamination that may in turn react with chlorine to create unhelpful by-products, including showering before entering the pool, continuous flocculation of filters for organic removal and supporting sanitiser treatments. It is in this area of larger pool management with bigger pool loads where concerns about chlorine are at their highest and where there is sympathy and interest in non or lower chlorine alternatives. So is there any justification for confusion when you start to deal with pool water treatment? Expert opinion on the future of chlorine is
divided. Whilst some still feel there is no safe alternative to chlorine, there are others who feel very differently. Chlorine may have been the accepted sanitiser for pools in the past but as awareness of the alternatives build, more pool operators are certainly reassessing their procedures and chemical usage.
For the time being the range of non-chlorine products is limited. UV systems are growing in popularity for the larger pools but they still need the use of small amounts of chlorine. Non-chlorine options for hot tubs are more available as the
control of smaller amounts of water is less complex. The next 12 months could see a change of attitude in the role non-chlorine and low chlorine products play in swimming pool water treatment away from the domestic market.
What the industry wants to see in this area is evidence of efficacy. Until then it is certain to play the safe and responsible line on chlorine use. There are now efforts to try and lay down a protocol for non-chlorine products to be properly tested – not just in the UK or Europe but worldwide. Manufacturers of chlorine-free products will increasingly be asked to prove their effectiveness against the new protocol. The case for at least finding out if non-chlorine alternatives are a viable alternative is growing. The SPATA technical review committee supports PWTAG saying there must be an oxidising residual disinfectant in the pool water at all times. In the case of the re launched SPATA and BISHTA Standards, a residual disinfectant is chlorine or bromine based products or a polymeric biguanide.
The chlorine-free lobby believes the changes and new developments in water treatment will
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108