Very intersting reading. The germacidal properties of sunlight and UV are well known. The most pertinent things I got from the paper are some things that we already know....Sunlight (mostly UVB) destroys simple halogens and might also destroy combined ones. Interesting side note, As I've said before I've kept aquariums for many years and when choramines became commen in drinking water treatement to prevent the formation of trihalomethanes it became a real pain in the a** to treat the water to get rid of the chloramines and the chorine. When chlorine by itself was used it only took a bit of sodium thiosulfate to destroy the chlorine and make the water safe for the tank. When chloramines were in the water we had to resort to breakpoint chlorination first and then thiosulfate....or as an alternative, it was determined that leaving the water exposed to direct sunlight for a day or two would destroy most of the choramines. OTO was the recommened test to determine when the chlorine was gone in either method. Not sure who came up with the sunlight method but it was pretty popular in my circle in the late 70's. It was discussed at the Marine Aquaruim Society that I belonged to at meetings.Originally Posted by PoolDoc
Getting back to the article. From my understanding it's main thrust was what they call the 'Halisol" method which uses halogen compounds and then UVB from sunlight which continue the sanitation and also destroy the halogens and possibly the combined halogens that form.. It would then seem to support what Ben said about outdoor pools. The bad stuff gets burned off by the sun (along with the good chlorine). To carry it one step further, if one is concerned about the health effects of chlorine in their pool then adding a UV unit could reduce the levels and also have a germicidal effect. Pretty much the claims made for UV units. Downside is the destruction of the necessary residual sanitizer.
I found the wavelengths that were effective intersting....once again from my experiences with aquariums. UV units for aquariums usually peak about 280 angstroms... UVC/UVB light. I have used them and gave up on them. Never really saw any benifits. The article stated that most of the UV that came from through the atmosphere was in the 320 -400 range...UVA. Marine aquariums use a type of bulb known as an 'actinic' bulb which produces light in the 440 angstrom range but also produces a lot of light in the UVA range and many aquariums also use metal halide bulbs which produce a lot of UVB/UVA light. I have seen higher redox readings on aquariums with this type of lighting (used in reef tanks) than with standard lightling. However, algae thrives under this type of light but cyanobacteria do not. Don't really understand enough of what is going on chemically to explain it except that higher redox in an aqauarium promotes more green (good) algae and destroys red and bluegeen (bad) algae. Then again, the first type of algae that usually takes hold in a pool is green algae. I suspect this is connected to the redox potential of the water. As water quality deteriorates the redox potential lowers so green algae will appear when there is not enought FC to to kill it but there are still some oxidative processes going on (such as a pool with high CYA and 'normal' FC levels...sound familiar?). As these lessen the mustard and black algaes (related to the bluegeen algaes in tanks) take hold ( Usually when a pool has been neglected and there is no chlorine or the CYA levels have gotten sky high). Pure speculaton on my part...but food for thought!
Sorry I can't relate more of this to pools but I have a lot more experience with aquariums and the effects of lighting (and we try and get rid of halogens in the water before we put the livestock in!) However, oxidation is an important process in an aquarium and redox is an important measurement. We use UV, ozone, and even hydrogen peroxide to treat the water to oxidize ammonia compounds and organics, then rely on nitrifying bacteria to convert what is left to nitrates, and finally, on anerobic denitrifying bacteria to convert the nitrates back into nitrogen gas so it can leave the water. If the organics cannot be sufficienly oxidized first then the nitrate levels get very high and denitrification is not sufficient to keep the nitrate levels down.
One needs to understand that there is a difference between oxidation and disinfection. Oxidation occurs in an aquarium but many bacteria and algae thrive. This is why oxidation by itself is not adequite for a pool and, personally, makes me a bit suspect of relying on ORP controllers to determine proper sanitation levels. I am the first to admit that I don't know much about their application in pools firsthand but I do know that such chemicals as hydrogen peroxde, CYA, Oxone (MPS), and sodium percarbonate mess up ORP readings in pools (and test as TC on OTO and DPD tests). In fact, sodium percarbonate is no longer used as a non chlorine 'shock' for this very reason, since it was mainly used in commercial pools with ORP controllers (although it is sometimes pushed as a way to convert a biguinide pool to chlorine quickly).
I realized that is seems that I have drifted off topic but I really haven't. Disinfection is necessary in a pool. Chlorine is the best disinfectant that we have. Many of the studies on pool disinfection are based on ORP readings of 650 mv or higher to determine proper sanitation levels but there seems to be a general fallacy in this since many factors can influance the ORP reading but don't really have an impact on actual sanitation and kill times. I personally would be more concerend about the health effects of low chlorine levels than I would about higher ones! As far as how much chlorine is safe....I don't think anyone really knows from what I have been able to research. It all seems rather arbitrary. Even the selection of 650 mv for ORP readings is an aribitrary selection. Florida requires an even higher reading (I believe it is 850 mv, gonna have to check the CPO text at work).

Reply With Quote

Bookmarks