Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
More ducks . . .
Zodiac Pool Systems EPA registrations from http://ppis.ceris.purdue.edu/ :
Interestingly, there does not appear to be an active sanitizer registration for Zodiac involving monopersulfate.
Firm Number: 67712
ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS, INC.
6000 CONDOR DRIVE
MOORPARK CA 93021
805/529-2000
Number of Selected Products: 3
NATURE2 G45-VC40
Registration Number: 67712-1
Status: Active
Approval Date: 11-21-02
Product Manager: Marshall Swindell (703)308-6341
Percent Active Ingredient
8.2300 Copper sulfate pentahydrate (24401)
3.5100 Silver (72501)
NATURE2 AG
Registration Number: 67712-5
Status: Active
Approval Date: 11-21-02
Product Manager: Marshall Swindell (703)308-6341
Percent Active Ingredient
9.4300 Copper sulfate pentahydrate (24401)
2.3300 Silver (72501)
NATURE2 SPA
Registration Number: 67712-15
Status: Active
Approval Date: 02-16-06
Product Manager: Marshall Swindell (703)308-6341
Percent Active Ingredient
0.9200 Silver (72501)
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
The MPS / Nature2 Missing Registration Mystery
Searching in Purdue U's database of EPA registrations
http://ppis.ceris.purdue.edu/htbin/epachem.com
for:Potassium monopersulfate
Oxone (Dupont trade name)
37222-66-5 CAS number
I came up with zip.
BUT, Nature2 claims to have a registered spa sanitation system, involving MPS
http://www.nature2.com/spaproducts/nature2spa.asp
"If used with MPS, the most recommended spa oxidant, Nature2 Spa becomes a complete spa sanitizing system - the only non-chlorine spa sanitizing option available. And managing your spa is easier than ever; Nature2 Spa slips into your spa filter and lasts up to four months."
http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/cgi-bin/labe...l?prodno=54550
I did find a more complete set of approved labels, with other information. I'll have to explore this later:
http://apps.sd.gov/doa/prrs/search/P....asp?key_m=779
Found the MPS Spa "recipe":
https://apps.sd.gov/doa/PRRS/ImageVi...47156&Type=pdf
That's all for tonight.
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
Ben, I sent you a PM.
Also, check out this thread which had both the old and new spa low chlorine recipes in it.
http://www.poolforum.com/pf2/showthread.php?t=5446
I posted it in 2006 when Zodiac changed the instructions and came out with the "NEW" low chlorine recipe which works out to maintaining about a 2-3ppm FC in the spa and shocking to about 10-12 ppm as compared to the "OLD" recipe that shocked the spa to 6 ppm on startup, kept a .5 ppm residual, and "as needed shocking" to 2 ppm. Wonder why they made the change in 2006?
Interestingly enough, the current spa instructions on the US website have a 2007 copyright and they have upped the 'as needed shocking" with dichlor to a higher FC level, about 10-12 ppm. Hardly a low chlorine recipe at all.
In the original recipe MPS was an option for the as needed shocking, in the 2006 and 2007 instructions the use of MPS as shock is no longer done but dichlor is used instead.
Also, here is an interesting link from Zodiac Australia. It is the Australian instructions for the N2 express. FC is kept at a minimum of 1 ppm and higher levels for indoor or stabilized pools. They then go recommend stabilizer levels of 50 ppm! (Is this a sneaky way to say that FC needs to be higher than 1 ppm with a N2?)
http://www.zodiac.com.au/media/29825...s%20manual.pdf
I know that the APVMA (Australian government entity that controls pesticides and swimming pool chemicals, much like our own EPA,except their guidelines for pool and spa sanitizers seem to be more stringent than ours) did recall the Nature2 in 2004 because of the very low chlorine levels they were suggesting (much like the US instructions still do)
http://www.apvma.gov.au/publications...tte0403p14.php
They also recalled the N2 spa carts because of the MPS only options (which changed in the US in 2006 to require chlorine in the recipe for shocking)
http://www.apvma.gov.au/publications...tte0406p26.php
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
All very interesting.
The change from the original Fountainhead patents to the current incarnation is interesting. It appears that the old product focused on what happened inside the cartridge while the new ones are merely passive "mineral-izers".
Again, it looks like Henig STILL believes that something real was happening in his unit; he has newer patents along that line. But Zodiac and Denkewicz seem to have given that up. There was some justification for the "'active oxygen" and catalyst language dealers have used, in that Henig and other Fountainhead folks seem to have believed it. (Who knows: it might even be true!) But, it doesn't apply to the current Nature2, at all.
Seems to be an example of a corporation seeing value, not in the actual product, but only in the brand name.
Ben
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
Yet, at best, it still comes out to a very expensive "solution" to the fear some people have of chlorine, a fear I've yet to see justified. I'd be guessing at the statistics but I'd say for every person actually truly sensitive to chlorine and bromine, there's a VAST number that think they are, when it fact they are merely sensitive to a poorly maintained pool--as most of us are!
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
Carl, I think a lot of the problem goes back to the fact that a lot of people have - Experienced skin or eye irritation in pools that were . . .
- Chlorinated.
The whole FREE / COMBINED distinction is to them a "distinction without a difference", because the chlorinated pools they have encountered were irritating.
Ben
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PoolDoc
Carl, I think a lot of the problem goes back to the fact that a lot of people have
- Experienced skin or eye irritation in pools that were . . .
- Chlorinated.
The whole FREE / COMBINED distinction is to them a "distinction without a difference", because the chlorinated pools they have encountered were irritating.
Ben
Ben,
Exactly!
Eat a spoiled piece of fish and it puts you off fish, which has nothing to do with fish itself.
Carl
Re: The Great Nature2 Debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PoolDoc
All very interesting.
The change from the original Fountainhead patents to the current incarnation is interesting. It appears that the old product focused on what happened inside the cartridge while the new ones are merely passive "mineral-izers".
Again, it looks like Henig STILL believes that something real was happening in his unit; he has newer patents along that line.
Then if this really IS the case it means that the only sanitatin takes place INSIDE the unit, whch makes it no better as a sanitizers than an ozonator or UV sanitizer. The only water that is being sanitized is inside the chamber! Once again this means that a fast acting residual sanitizer at levels that are effective needs to be present in the water.
It IS all very interesting!
