The Great Nature2 Debate

Nature2 IS too good to be true. See if you can figure out how it works....good luck!

What N2 does is dump silver and copper into your water. This (hopefully) inhibits algae growth therefore reducing (not eliminating) the amount of chlorine you need.

Thus, you end up with metals in your water that cause all sorts of problems.

We see newcomers all the time who think that chlorine is somehow a bad thing. What most learn is that the problems they have had are wrongly attributed to chlorine but are, in fact, due to badly maintained pools.

You have only 3 choices for sanitizing your pool: Chlorine, Bromine and Bacquacil. Chlorine is the cheapest, easiest to use, most effective, and easiest to diagnose for problems. All others are snake oil.

Here's an example of one we teach here that freaks people out: Do you smell chlorine in your pool, and it's really strong, and you want get rid of it so you....?
We tell you to add MORE chlorine to get rid of the smell!

Sound crazy? It's not. The smell is from "used up" chlorine--combined chloramines. The way to break them down is to increase the amount of Free chlorine in the water--and you do that by "shocking" the pool--increasing the chlorine to a higher level. I've personally done it many times and even my wife was astonished to learn it was true.

Not only that, those combined chloramines irritate your skin and your eyes--properly chlorinated water eliminates much of that. True cases of chlorine sensitivity are rare as hen's teeth!

So, welcome to our forum and to a brave new world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oroepke1

Hi there, this is my first post. We have decided to build a 13,000 gal in ground pool. We thought to use a salt-system, because I have heard that this is better for sensitive skin (which we all have), allthough I am aware that it "makes" chlorine from salt and is not a chlorine free system.

I have heard from a lot of people that they want to switch their pool to salt, however my pool-builder tells me that only about 10% of new pools have a saltwater system, all the others go with a standard chlorine system. What is everybody's opinion on salt?

Salt systems work well and have been around worldwide since the 60s. I have one on my own pool and couldn't be happier. However, there have been some cases (particularly in Texas) where local natural stone was used in pool construction that was damaged by the salt. IMHO, this is not the fault of the salt systems but, rather, of using materials that are NOT appropriate for pool construction.

Also another builder had suggested the Nature2 system. Looking at the Nature2 website it seems to be the way to go, sounds too good to be true. Where is the drawback?

first, it puts copper and silver in the water
second, replacement nature 2 cartridges will run about $200 a year (one every 6 months) and you still need to buy chlorine and all the other pool chemicals to balance your water
Did I mention that copper is what turns hair green and stains pools?
Third, you will not necessarily have sanitized water. Copper and silver have very slow kill times and .5 ppm free chlorine residual is not enough to ensure sanitized water, particularity with an outdoor pool that has stabilizer in it (as all outdoor pools must)

http://www.poolforum.com/pf2/showthread.php?t=98
Please help, need to make a decision soon on what system to use.

Thanks a lot, Olaf (Location Central Texas)

---

Bottom line is this. There are only three EPA approved residual sanitizers for swimming pools--chlorine, bromine, and biguanide (PHMB). Of the three chlorine is the best choice for an outdoor pool. Bromine cannot be stabilized against loss from UV light and biguanide systems are very expensive, don't really provide sparkling clear water, and after a few years usually develop white water mold or pink slime (that can only really be cured by draining the pool and sterilizing everything with CHLORINE!)
http://www.poolforum.com/pf2/forumdisplay.php?f=137

Ultimately only you can make a decision as to what you want to use in your pool but first you should read at least the two sections of the forum I linked to and get other peoples experiences so you don't repeat their mistakes.

BTW, just to clarify: Bacquacil is a brand name for Biguanide.

As Evan says, it's the copper that turns blond hair green--not the chlorine.

If you really want a low chlorine system rather than a non-chlorine system, salt water chlorine generation is the way to go. It keeps SUCH a constant level of chlorine in the water that you don't need nearly as much. Plus it's great for keeping your pool clear if you go away.

Evan, correct me if I'm wrong, but bromine is really more appropriate for hot tubs, which don't see much UV and can have very intense bather loads--and frequently get emptied and refilled.

I have NO idea what biguanide is good for. It's only advantage over bromine that I'm aware of is it's easier to convert a biguanide pool to chlorine than a bromine pool.

I have the Nature2 system, I disagree that it is too good to be true, Both My wife and son have blond hair and have never had any issues with green hair.
It does use metals to assist in sanitizing the pool, but I have not had any problems that people associate with that.
The cartridge costs $100 and mine last for 2 seasons, so it costs me about $50 per season, we use around 4 ozs of granular chlorine a week, plus you use a "spring" cartridge for the start up at the start of the season it costs about $24.
Always have sparkling clear water it is softer as the Nature2 does use minerals.
Most people will advice against it, but I am a fan of it and I don't have any issues with my water.
I am speaking from my own experience with the system and that fact that I do not have any problems with my water chemistry, green hair, algae or metal staining.

Thanks for the quick and detailed replies!

Just to make sure I don't misunderstand, can I combine a salt-water pool with Nature2 also? It seems most people advise against Nature2 but according to what Britinusa says it seems to work. Need to do some more reading I guess .....

Olaf

Im mot sure if you can combine a salt system with the nature2.
Im sure more people will post and tell you not to get the nature2, that seems to be the case on most forums I am on, But it works well for me.

If you have the salt system, I'm not sure why you'd want the Nature2--the salt system will maintain adequate chlorine levels without it, so why go to the added expense of the extra cartridges and system? The salt also will will make the "feel" of the water softer, so the Nature2 won't help in that regard.

I don't have a Nature2 and have no practical experience with it, but I have been a mod on this forum for over 6 years and can tell you that we've had poster after poster come here after using the Nature2 systems for awhile for help with dealing with metals in the water. So before you decide to go that route, take some time and read through the metals forum so you know what you're in for once you get copper in you water, and THEN decide whether you want to go that route or not.

Janet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by britinusa

I have the Nature2 system, I disagree that it is too good to be true, Both My wife and son have blond hair and have never had any issues with green hair.
It does use metals to assist in sanitizing the pool, but I have not had any problems that people associate with that.
The cartridge costs $100 and mine last for 2 seasons, so it costs me about $50 per season, we use around 4 ozs of granular chlorine a week, plus you use a "spring" cartridge for the start up at the start of the season it costs about $24.
Always have sparkling clear water it is softer as the Nature2 does use minerals.
Most people will advice against it, but I am a fan of it and I don't have any issues with my water.
I am speaking from my own experience with the system and that fact that I do not have any problems with my water chemistry, green hair, algae or metal staining.

---

Ok, you are not using the system the way the manufacturer says(and the manufacturer's directions is how the system got EPA approval!)...the carts are supposed to be replaced every 6 months. They don't last longer so you so not have sanitized water. The copper will keep the water clear since it prevents algae growth but it does not keep the water sanitized since the CT time for copper is much longer than for one of the three EPA approved sanitizers. If you are keeping the recommended .5 ppm FC in the water with an old cart your pool might not grow algae but it certainly is growing bacteria and viruses!

FWIW, I have sold both N2 and several brands of SWGs in the past and have helped many customers with both systems. I am not a fan of the N2 even though it was a GREAT profit generator for the store.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by britinusa

Im mot sure if you can combine a salt system with the nature2.
Im sure more people will post and tell you not to get the nature2, that seems to be the case on most forums I am on, But it works well for me.

---

Actually you can. In fact, Zodiac sells a combo unit with an undersized (for the gallonage listed) SWG and a N2 unit. My recommendation is to stay away. a properly sized salt system will make the N2 superfluous! (And an added expense of $200/year for N2 carts!)

BritinUSA:

I congratulate you: You are the first person I've come across who is happy with their Nature2 system! Seriously. Most hate it or have problems they didn't realize was related to it.

But I believe N2 recommends you change the cartridge every 6 months or every season, which ever it shorter. You are using yours for 2 seasons so you have ALREADY cut your costs in half by breaking "the rules" --not that you shouldn't--if you have been successful with 2 seasons per cart you've already gotten ahead of one of the objections to the N2 system.

How about posting your test numbers, along with your pool size and type (vinyl, concrete, in-ground or above ground)? It would be interesting to see what works with Nature2. Perhaps we'll be able to recommend ways for people to be successful with them. Currently we do NOT recommend Nature2 under any circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlD

BTW, just to clarify: Bacquacil is a brand name for Biguanide.

As Evan says, it's the copper that turns blond hair green--not the chlorine.

If you really want a low chlorine system rather than a non-chlorine system, salt water chlorine generation is the way to go. It keeps SUCH a constant level of chlorine in the water that you don't need nearly as much. Plus it's great for keeping your pool clear if you go away.

Evan, correct me if I'm wrong, but bromine is really more appropriate for hot tubs, which don't see much UV and can have very intense bather loads--and frequently get emptied and refilled.
Bromine is a bit easier to maintain at the higher temperatures of a hot tub without daily attention but really offers no advantages over chlorine. It is not a good choice for an outdoor pool.
I have NO idea what biguanide is good for. It's only advantage over bromine that I'm aware of is it's easier to convert a biguanide pool to chlorine than a bromine pool.

---

Actually, It's about the same difficulty to convert biganide to either chlorine or bromine and, in fact, it might be a bit easier to convert to bromine.
The only advantage I know of for biguande is that it allows those few individuals who have a TRUE (and medically determined) allergy to halogens (chlorine and bromine) to have a sanitized pool. Other than that it's disadvantages and costs outweigh any benefits, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlD

BritinUSA:


But I believe N2 recommends you change the cartridge every 6 months or every season, which ever it shorter. You are using yours for 2 seasons so you have ALREADY cut your costs in half by breaking "the rules" --not that you shouldn't--if you have been successful with 2 seasons per cart you've already gotten ahead of one of the objections to the N2 system.

---

Carl,
by 'breaking the rules, they do not have sanitized water! Period. Remember the pool is oing to look clear because of the copper sulfate in the cart but the N2 also depends on silver nitrate. The reason the EPA approved these units is because they are replaced every 6 months of use. That is two carts a year (or one if the pool is closed for 6 months or longer). Once the cart is "activated" it does not have an indefinite shelf life.

I stand corrected! And thank you! So...using the cart for 2 years means...what? How are they not running into the problems of not having the copper/silver killing algae the second season?

You got me backwards on the other post.

I said it's easier to convert biguanide to chlorine than bromine, meaning bromine is MUCH harder to convert to chlorine than biguanide, not from biguanide to bromine (who would do that????)

I KNEW there was a reason bromine worked better in hot tubs--I thought it was the bather load and the fact the few hot tubs are run in the sunshine.

My test Numbers:
FC 1ppm
PH 7.5
TA 130
CYA 40

My pool is only open for the summer I close it in September and re-open in June.
This year I started with the cartridge that I put in last august and that will most likely last till this august.
So i replace them every 5 months of use.
It works for me as Im using less chlorine than i hear some people using.
Their website says that nothing effects the life of the cartridge, so I cant see an issue with removing it at the end of the season and re-using it in the the spring.


Above ground pool 6600 gallons
Hayward super pump
Hayward EC50 DE filter

Britinusa, how can you 'tell' that the cartridge from last season is 'working'? When I got my pool it came with a Nature2 system and I could never figure out if it was working or not... There was no 'test' that came with it to tell me what it was doing or not doing, so after a few months I just took it out and haven't bought any replacements (don't intend to either, after I found this place and learned that it was putting metals into my pool! :eek:). I didn't have any problems with it (staining, green hair, etc), I just can't see how it could be a good thing to load up the water with copper and silver...

Never been in the China Shop before... :cool:

I'm going to wait till I've found the current Nature2 sanitizer data, before I post.

I've figured out why -- I'm pretty sure -- BritinUSA is getting good results, but I'll save that for now.

I want to say clearly, I believe he is entirely sincere in making the claims he has. I just think there's a better explanation for his results, than Nature2

Meanwhile . . . ya'll be nice!

Ben
"PoolDoc"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by britinusa

My test Numbers:
FC 1ppm
PH 7.5
TA 130
CYA 40

My pool is only open for the summer I close it in September and re-open in June.
This year I started with the cartridge that I put in last august and that will most likely last till this august.
So i replace them every 5 months of use.
It works for me as Im using less chlorine than i hear some people using.
Their website says that nothing effects the life of the cartridge, so I cant see an issue with removing it at the end of the season and re-using it in the the spring.


Above ground pool 6600 gallons
Hayward super pump
Hayward EC50 DE filter

---

According to the newest info on the Zodiac website the cartridge should be replaced every 6 months or 1 season, whichever is shorter. (which is what the cart instructions have said for the past several years) It says nothing about keeping a cart stored to use the next season.
http://www.nature2.com/files/TL2800_...ers_Manual.pdf

The 'spring cart' you use for startup is actually a lanthanum based phospahte remover in cart form. The price is a bit high for a phosphate remover since 2 liters of Natural Chemistry's PHOSfree is available for about $20-$25 and will treat between 20 and 40k gallons of water. House brand lanthanum phosphate removers are usually even less expensive.
Then again, there is no real need for phosphate removers if the chlorine is kept at proper levels, and the proper use of chlorine is much less expensive than using phosphate removers.

Now I'm on pins and needles for Ben's explanation!

I do worry that BritinUSA is taking a risk with an FC of 1 and a CYA of 40. But I'm not a chemist or biologist so maybe I'm missing something.

BritinUSA--with that FC of 1 do you also have a CC of 0?

I like to think I'm open-minded so if there's an explanation that explains this experience I really want to know it so we can help others duplicate it.

It's probably going to be Monday.

I've got to read thru Richard's replies, think about them, read thru some stuff online and so on.

Ben

Just lining up ducks . . .

Nature2 Patents:


5352369-Henig-Fountainhead-Method of treating water
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5352369.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5352369.pdf

5660802-Henig-Fountainhead-Water purifier
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5660802.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5660802.pdf

5766456-Denkewicz-Fountainhead-Water purifer for a pool
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5766456.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5766456.pdf

5779913-Denkewicz-Fountainhead-Water purifier for a spa
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5779913.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5779913.pdf

5858246-Henig-Fountainhead-Method of water purification with oxides of chlorine
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5858246.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5858246.pdf

6093422-Denkewicz-Zodiac-Biocidal compositions for treating water
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093422.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093422.pdf

6200487-Denkewicz-Zodiac-In-line,in-pool water purification system
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6200487.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6200487.pdf

6254894-Denkewicz-Zodiac-Silver self-regulating water purification compositions and methods
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6254894.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6254894.pdf

6524540-Henig-Biocatalytica-Materials and methods for water purification
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6524540.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6524540.pdf



PoolDoc

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)

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.

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

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

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!

Carl, I think a lot of the problem goes back to the fact that a lot of people have

1. Experienced skin or eye irritation in pools that were . . .
2. Chlorinated.

The whole FREE / COMBINED distinction is to them a "distinction without a difference", because the chlorinated pools they have encountered were irritating.

Ben

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoolDoc

Carl, I think a lot of the problem goes back to the fact that a lot of people have

1. Experienced skin or eye irritation in pools that were . . .
2. 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

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!