How Quats and Polyquat Algaecides work.

Quats and Polyquat Algaecides

Quats:- most often found in active concentrations of 5-10%. Such "quaternary ammonium salts" are surfactants (like detergents) and if added in excess, will cause foaming on the pool surface. Surfactants lower the surface tension of the water and "wet" algae cell walls. This "wetting" splits open the cell wall and kills the algae. Quats are most often used as a preventative, requiring lower concentrations and amounts than Polyquat to achieve the same level of prevention.

Polyquat:- sold in concentrations of 30 to 60%. and are more costly than Quats. Polyquat works well at destroying visible algae, being effective not only on green algae, but also with the chlorine resistant mustard and black algae, especially if pool has been brushed before application, Since it is Non-foaming, it is preferable for use where fountains, water falls, or other water features are a part of the swimming pool circulation system. Polyquat is also a clarifier and helps flocculate and remove organic matter.


(This information was gathered from several sources and combined to a more concise form. and posted for general information)

Haze:

Experience of folks around here has been that the "quats" are more trouble than they are worth. Most of us won't use them.

PolyQuat is not really that much more expensive (if you shop for it)--I usually get it for $15 a quart or less and buy enough for a season or two.

Where we deviate from pool orthodoxy is that we do NOT recommend either for an algae bloom. By then it's too late. We recommend simply hammering the bloom with heavy dosing with chlorine (usually bleach) to get FC up to the shock level appropriate for the CYA/Stabilizer level in the pool and keeping the pool there until the water is clear for 48 hours (and shows no heavy FC drop off and CC never topping .5).

We do recommend using PolyQuat as a preventative as it will inhibit algae, act as a flocculant and has few if any side effects.

I had this same information on the old forum and no one ever commented on it.

I just reposted the information on this forum as I thought others might be wondering as I did, how these algaecides actually functioned.

Has anyone done testing to see if polyquat is ineffective against an algae bloom?

Someone on another thread stated it had been effective for them , which is what reminded me about reposting this information.

http://www.poolforum.com/pf2/showthread.php?t=486

I have no wish to misinform anyone. Please delete this thread if you feel it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haze_1956

I just reposted the information on this forum as I thought others might be wondering as I did, how these algaecides actually functioned.

Has anyone done testing to see if polyquat is ineffective against an algae bloom?
.
.
.

I have no wish to misinform anyone. Please delete this thread if you feel it does.

---

Some people do wonder about such things; I do, for one.

But, the PoolForum is not primarily about satisfying the curiousity of techno -geeks like you, or me. It's about helping ordinary, non-geeky pool owners ENJOY their pools.

That's why you won't see me recommending that someone 'test polyquats' against a bloom: chlorine is easier, cheaper, and more broadly effective. Now, if YOU decide to test it, I'd definitely like hear about your results. And, you can be sure that I'll start construction on a full blown pool lab, the first year I sell 100,000 kits. (Like that'll ever happen :()

I'm endlessly curious about almost everything -- my interests range from the way meaning is transmitted via language, to the effect Robert E. Lee's command of Southern forces had on the War Between the States (as my Grandmother would call it), to why the barred owls in the Chickamauga Battlefield call in the spring (I recently found the answer to that one!), to possible practical solutions to the security and content problems that affect families, schools and churches using the Internet. But, none of those things belong here, and I try to keep them off.

I sometimes do write painfully long and detailed posts here, but usually what I'm trying to do is answer some question about technology that's being widely promoted in spite of being nearly useless for most pool owners. (eg. ozone!) The only way I know to do so is to explain, at length, and in detail, why ozone, or whatever, is usually useless.

It would be nice, in some ways, if the PoolForum could simply present the best way to do things, without constantly having to net all the 'red herrings' being constantly thrown into the pool by every sleazebag salesman. But, in the real world, fighting bad information is the necessary prelude to providing good information.

Fortunately, quats -- linear or poly -- aren't real money makers any more, so nobody's fighting too hard for their use. The linear quats are just diluted more and more, and sold in gallon jugs at a discount. So, it doesn't take much to convince people to 'just say no' to quats.

Bottom line: I don't mind your post, but it's not really that helpful to most readers. So, I'll move this thread to the "China Shop", where it can reside harmlessly!

Ben

Ben, I think you may underestimate the appetite many of us "ordinary, non-geeky pool owners" have for this esoteric stuff. I think many of us want to understand the chemistry (and biology) on a little deeper level than "just keep adding bleach"; as sound and effective as that advice may be.

Keep the geeks (and their posts).

Ben

I don't have a problem with thread being moved to the China Shop, if you feel the information is not of value. However, do you feel the information I posted was inaccurate?

Because if the way polyquat functions, by rupturing the cell walls, is correct, it should be very effective against an existing bloom. A dose of poly to weaken the algae followed by high chlorine dose, would certainly shorten the time to eliminate it.

Just seems logical to me.

Way too frequently, threads like this show up that distract from the intent of the forum.....a fairly simple way to take care of your pool without throwing away a lot of money.

While it may be interesting to a VERY select few, it is not to the vast majority of people who come to the forum seeking advice. Rather, it seems more like the OP is seeking a platform for pontification.

Many of these posters are short lived on the forum. Given the argumentative nature of the OP's second post, The China Shop may not be his final destination.:)

Duraleigh,

I greatly resent the accusation I am being argumentative. I am ASKING to be given the correct information if what I posted was incorrect. I am lookiing to learn something, just as my intent of the thread was to teach something.

I suggested a logical method of clearing algae quicker, which I had never seen suggested on the forum and asked if it was viable.

I thought the point of this forum was to discuss ideas and inform people how to maintain their pool at minimal cost. I felt the suggestion qualified for that, and was wondering why it hadn't been discussed previously?

I would appreciate some discussion, as long it is about the topic and not any imagined motives on my part.

OK, I feel, better now !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haze_1956

I greatly resent the accusation I am being argumentative. I am ASKING to be given the correct information if what I posted was incorrect. I am lookiing to learn something, just as my intent of the thread was to teach something.

---

Dave's post, while true in general, goes much further than I would concerning your particular post, especially once it had been moved to the China Shop. If you want to discuss the theory of linear quat's mode of action, and someone else wants to discuss it with you . . . that's fine with me.

My original point, though, was that that sort of discussion is not interest to most folks here: they just want the algae dead, and don't really care whether it is hung, shot, or fried in the electric chair.:p

Regarding your question of whether quats *should* be effective, due to their mode of action, well, it's been several years since I read a journal article on quats, and I don't actually remember (from any authoritative source) how they work.

Right now, while I'm trying to get kits shipped, and server things done, and keep an eye on the forum, I really don't have time to go back and re-read some of the stuff in my files. After all, it's STILL true that quats don't mix well with chlorine, and don't work well, in the first place, until you put enough in to make the water foamy. So, I guess that's the bottom line for me.

Best wishes,

Ben
"PoolDoc"

Haze,

Yeah, I was out of line in assigning an agenda to your post. Please accept my apologies for my intemperate remarks.

I would like to think if the post had started in the China Shop, I wouldn't have said what I did.

I have read your other posts on different subjects and there is no "pontification" to be found. (I'm not even sure that's a valid word....perhaps I'm guilty myself:) )

There is a high percentage of people who post outside the China Shop that think "Cl" means your water is "clear". That's who I was thinking about.....nevertheless, my comments weren't appropriate to your post. I'm sorry.:)

I don't understand the fuss over this thread.

It may not be of interest to everyone but, then, most threads aren't.

.
Thank you Dave, that was much appreciated.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny

I don't understand the fuss over this thread.

It may not be of interest to everyone but, then, most threads aren't.

---

It's always a judgement, as to how to moderate the PoolForum. In the end, it comes down to my judgement. I won't even begin to claim that the way I do it, or see it, is the BEST way.

But it's the nature of forums to drift off topic. And when that happens, their value is diminished their value, especially for newbies.

The original post had two features that caused me to move it.

First, it was theoretical, and didn't reflect a current problem, needing a solution. This time of year, it's nearly impossible to respond to all the immediate questions, and it's really not (in my opinion!) the right time of the year for speculative discussions.

Second, it addressed a chemical that is almost always a 'second-best' answer. In other words, there's almost never a pool situation where linear quats are are the best available tool. Consequently, I tend to view dicussions of how linear quats work, or how to optimize their use, as a bit of a waste of time. It's sort of like trying to figure out how to get good results sending a photo by fax, when email's available, and the photo can be sent instantly with no loss of resolution by email. There are ways to improve fax resolution . . . but why bother if you've got email?

The only time I can think of, where "linear quats" are the best answer to a pool question is on PHMB treated pools. But, if a pool's on PHMB, they've got worse problems than quats can solve. :rolleyes:

Anyhow, for better or worse, that's the way I saw it.

China Shop seems such a great, ironic name:
"You break it, you own it"

But really it's "a bull in a....."

Here's where you can BE a bull without fear of what you break.

And wherever there's a bull, there's BS!:eek:

So once this went to the China Shop, the discussion can be freer. And less relevant to most.

Thanks for the explanation, Ben. The move originally seemed a bit heavy-handed to me but now I understand the logic.

I went and read the link to Heidi's thread and recall that she had another thread going as well ... and if memory serves me correctly the bottom of the pool was lined with debris which she did not get out for quite a while.

That being said, ( or recalled ) if the killing of the bloom and clearing of the pool co-incided with the addition of the polyquat, then it is possible that the polyquat is being given too much credit for the result.

Darned computers will crash and make us rely on grey matter. I'd love to have re-read her whole thread. Seems to me it went on for a long time last year, and then another 2 weeks this year. You gotta wonder.

Well, it seems some testing has begun.

http://www.poolforum.com/pf2/showthread.php?t=3108

Science Marches On !!!!!