www.swimmingpoolnews.co.uk
ChlorineAlternatives JUN 2012 SPN
ALTERNATIVE PROGRESS?
Consumer pressure is still leading the way for more use of chlorine-free products and sales of these alternatives continue to grow. While industry standards only refer to traditional methods of pool sanitation, no or lower chlorine products have to work harder to gain wider acceptance
By Alan Lewis S
ometimes looking for trends in this industry is a difficult thing.
No one disputes that when it comes to the debate on chlorine versus eco friendlier alternatives, it is consumer demand and interest which is setting the pace.
Without exception, the companies providing increasing numbers of low or no chlorine products are reporting increases in sales and enthusiasm from pool and spa owners. Such companies report satisfied, content customers who wanted to find an alternative to chlorine which provided the same safety for
POOL INSTALLERS ‘CAN’T RISK BREACHING EXISTING STANDARDS’ One pool installer told Swimming Pool
News that he would welcome the chance to use and recommend to customers a sanitiser which was less ‘violent’ than chlorine.
“A lot of people are talking enthusiastically about these new generation products. I know my customers are always asking for a way not to use so much chlorine but the fact is they don’t carry any proof with them and I therefore need in the interest of my customers to stick to the standards set down by the industry which say that chlorine is the preferred only guaranteed method. So we spend time training new pool owners in how to use it. You can often see they are not happy and they do worry about chlorine but I can’t see any way for me to change.”
swimming customers while being safer and more sustainable.
There is however no scientific proof available that such alternatives provide a workable alternative to chlorine and there is not likely in the foreseeable future to be changes to the industry codes of practice which refer to chlorine as the only proven residual sanitiser. So a trend hasn’t been fully established.
Yet sales and availability of products which limit the influence of chlorine continue to flourish – and attract interest in new product launches. The Health Protection Agency has had feedback from alternative treatment suppliers that the standards and claims quoted for chlorine are not referenced. New products are expected to achieve minimum safety standards but these are not validated for chlorine.
The HPA has also been told that “the worst thing for all concerned would be that the protocol, by being unachievable, becomes by default a means of protecting the sales of chlorine”.
New and alternative treatments to kill bacteria in swimming pools must prove their effectiveness before they can be approved for widespread use. Celina Brown from PoolSan, one of the leading
alternative treatments, which works on the copper silver principle but also contains gold, aluminium and zinc says: “Unlike Norway for example where the Folkehelseinstitutt (the Institute of Public Health) has approved PoolSan for use in public pools and spas, in this country there is no official body that can approve a leisure water treatment.
“In the absence of formal regulations in the UK, trade associations and advisory bodies have an important role in providing advice to both professionals and the public when constructing and operating a pool. However, as new methods and biocides such as PoolSan become established, these associations must keep up by providing unbiased, up-to-date and informed advice or risk losing their credibility amongst pool operators at the front line.
“Chlorine has saved many millions of lives over the years but, like so many other resources, technology and manufacturing developments have resulted in a product that can replace it whilst being safer and more sustainable. The public and pool operators have seen this happening and it’s time some sections of the industry caught up.”
“The Health Protection Agency has had
feedback from alternative treatment suppliers that the standards and claims quoted for chlorine are not referenced. New products are
expected to achieve minimum safety standards but these are not validated for chlorine”
47
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