Lower bromine with ozonator?

[hymbaw]

Dichlor has a ph of 6.0. I believe bromine to be about 4.0.

[HotTubMan]

Dichlor has a ph of 6.0. I believe bromine to be about 4.0.

Really? Where are you getting your dichlor and granular bromine?

SpaGuard Dichlor=7
Beachcomber (aka Sanimar) Dichlor=6.7
SpaGuard Bromine Concentrate=7
Beachcomber BromoBlast =6.7

Bromine Tablets are pH 4......I hope you aren't oxidizing using bromie tablets....

[hymbaw]

BioGuard Chem Plus 2000 training manual states on page 89 // Dichloro-S-Triazinetrione = ph of 6.0

[drewstar]

Drewstar;

Please dont take what I said as argumentative. I simply take exception to people (dealers mostly) that lead consumers to beleive that an ozonator or salt system results in a "chemical free" environment.

Ozone is a chemical, but you are right it does dissolve in the water quickly. It does not add to TDS directly like a granular oxidizer does.

Using an ozonator, especially on a 24 hour circ pump, will raise pH which will result in more chemicals to fix the pH. It is true also that some granular oxidizers will also change pH (MPS 2.3, Lithchlor 10.. Dichlor and its bromine cousin are pH neutral (7).

Nope, I didn't take it as argumentative, and even if it was, I don't mind. I prefer a healthy exchange of thoughts and experiences here.  So far my PH  has been fine (only 1 month though_

However I was seeing a bit of foaming in the tub, and it was a bit cloudy with the jets running. it would clear up in a few minutes after the pumps stopped, but I wasn't happy with it.

It was suggested I get my TDS checked.  I planned on doing that before dumping the water, but Saturday night I found my 18 year old nephew and his freinds in my tub eating chips and dip. ARRRRRRGH!  Foam was high. The next morning i said "F-it!" and drained the tub.  

I was suprised how long it took to  drain the tub. (2 drain valves on the base and 2 hoses, after 3 hours I was only 1/2 way down (350 gal tub). I I brought out my electric pump and had the thing empty in an hour.

I glossed the tub. (forgot to do that on initial fill up).

Refilled and will see what happens. Also noticed a slight yellow brownish film along the water line after fill up. It wiped off  very easy, but wondered about that.  I did put in a bottle of metal gone, as recomended before fill up.

?

[Bill_Stevenson]

I would like to cover just a few points that have been made in this thread.

Bromine is not pH neutral, it is quite acidic.

The cost savings from ozonators has never been quantified, documented, or published in any credible journal as far as I know.  So there is no way to know if it has an economic payback.  My gut tells me that it would cost at least as much to buy, use, and maintain an ozonator as it would to just use chemical treatment schemes.  An ozonator is nice to have anyway.  It is another tool in our arsenal of tools to control bacteria.  

Ozone or O3 is not very easily dissolved in water.  And it bubbles out and is lost quickly to the atmosphere.  O3 is not stable so it does not stay as O3 for long.  It is looking to get rid of that extra oxygen atom and to revert to the inherently stable O2 that we breathe.  What makes it such a powerful oxidizer is exactly that it is eager to give up it's extra oxygen atom.  It could be said to be an extremely aggressive chemical.  There is no more reactive oxidizer known.  

Regards,

Bill  

[HotTubMan]

Bromine is not pH neutral, it is quite acidic.

What bromine are you referring to? Pure bromine, which none of us can get our hands on. Bromine pucks (4) or bromine concentrate (which is  15% sodium bromide and 85% dichlor, pH 6.7-7)

[HotTubMan]

BioGuard Chem Plus 2000 training manual states on page 89 // Dichloro-S-Triazinetrione = ph of 6.0

They must offer different products north and south of the 49th..

[J._McD]

Just when you thought is was safe to go back into the water…..sorry I'm late, but I would like to clarify a few issues of conflict in this thread to correct any mis-understanding.

Well said…..I've been hearing for years how ozone will help…..
Does ozone reduce chemical use by 30%....80%
Will it extend the life of the water by 30%...80%
How will it lower my maintenance and by how much?
 
I agree that it will assist my sanitizer by making it more effective, but I too am unclear on the real savings. I've heard anything from 10% to 90% from dealers…..
 
Here's a question that maybe you can answer for me.
If my cost of ozone is $300 and I need to replace the chip every couple of years in a standard ozonator at a cost of approx $100, that would mean that over a 10 year period my cost of ozone is about $800. Will it save me more than this in relation to it's total cost and by how much?
…..there are variations of quality systems available that can dramatically effect our generalizations on cost and effectiveness.
To summarize my opinion McD, I respect your opinion but I want to be clear on it also. I agree that ozone can help. How much and at what cost? That, I'm unclear on. Maybe you can provide more details for us to give us a better understanding of its true advantage.
Steve

Steve, I have not collected nor have I certified any scientific data that will support my “grass roots” claims of practical use and application of ozone.  I do not profit in any way to state my concepts or opinions which are based on my actual experience with over 5,000 customers and 21 years of using ozone as the primary sanitizer in spa water.

Your questions are legitimate and here is my response; I would represent annual chemical consumption on an ozone treated spa to be not more than approx. $100 @ year.  Over 10 years, your chemical consumption would be approx. $1,000 plus the cost of Ozone that you suggest would be approx. $800 for a combined total of $1,800, or an average $180 per year.  Because TDS are much lower, ozone will extend the time between necessary water changes upwards to a year, or even more.  Thus, in 10 years you would drain, refill and re-heat the water 10 times.  Consider the cost of your time and energy.

On the other hand, you could choose to NOT use ozone and your chemical consumption cost over a year’s time would approximate $300, or $3000 over 10 years which would include additional start up sequestering agents etc.  Plus, because of the TDS build up and chemical stew that develops, you will change your water every 3 months, or 4 times a year and 40 times over the 10 years.  Consider the cost of your time and energy.

IF instead, your choice was to use BQ as a sanitizer, your annual cost would border $400 to $500 a year and if you were to use an ozonator on a BQ treated spa the cost would escalate upwards to $500 to $600 a year.  That would be $5,000 to $6,000 over 10 years.

And, thank you for acknowledging that there are variations in the quality levels of ozonators from expensive to inexpensive for our shoppers to keep in mind.  They certainly do perform differently because of the type, style, quantity, method of mixing and length of the “contact” chambers used to reduce “off gassing” that we hear so much about.

What you and others have “heard” is sales talk which can be misleading and inaccurate.  If you do respect my opinion, then with an open mind you will consider it for a short period of time before rebuking it.  Individually, we stand to gain nothing, however collectively, we can all benefit, if we open our minds and apply our combined knowledge for the interest of all.  Are you up for it?

Why no one has scientifically come forward to prove beyond any reasonable doubt to convert all of the naysayers and disbelievers, is the same reason there are 7 primary froms of religion.  We are all different and who profits to make you all believers?

[J._McD]

Let me chime in and add to this interesting exchange.  I own a spa that has both an ozonator and a silver ion exchange system and I follow the Vermonter's water treatment regime.   I am a professional engineer, working in the chemical engineering relm, but I am not a water chemist by any means.

Anyway, ozone is O3 (the 3 should be a sub) and is highly unstable.  O2 is ordinary oxygen and is of course quite stable. So O3 does not last long, a matter of no more than a few seconds.  O3 is harmful to the environment and the amont of O3 that can be generated must be quite small.  Manufacturers of ozonators try to keep the amount of gas generated below governmental regulation limits so as to protect the environment.  

Ozone is the most powerful oxidizer or sanitizer known to man.  It is several orders of magnitude more powerful than dichlor or bromine as an oxidizer.  But only a wee bit of it is being generated in your ozonator, and that wee bit has a short life span of just a few seconds.  So an ozonator kills some bugs and this minimizes the need for dichlor or bromine.  If a bigger, more powerful ozonator could be built perhaps it would generate sufficient O3 to obviate the need for dichlor or bromine.   For obvious reasons, such a device cannot be.  

Now some ozonators are more effective than others.  This has to do with not only how much O3 they generate, but how well that O3 mixes with the water.  Tiny bubbles are better than big bubbles and so on.  So, two people can have different experience with ozonators because they are dealing with different ozonator products.

In conclusion, an ozonator is a nice thing to have.  A good one should kill enough bugs so as to reduce the need for dichlor or bromine a noticeable amount.  It is possible to treat water to kill bugs without an ozonator as well as with one.  Either approach will still require the use of chemicals such as dichlor or bromine simply because the ozonator that is environmentally acceptable is not able to do the whole job by itself.
I hope that helps.
Regards,
Bill

Bill, maybe you can help us better understand.  What would you anticipate your annual chemical cost to be and how often do your change your water?  When you do change your water, is it because it is cloudy or dirty and smells of chemicals, or is it clean and clear like the new water you put in?

Ozone is indeed a potent and powerful oxidizer and sanitizer, but is it a chemical or a gas?  Isn’t ozone a gas derived from oxygen as you state or is it a chemical compound?

If ozone is a more powerful oxidizer, sanitizer than di-chlor or bromine, then why is it that we must use chlorine or bromine if we were able to introduce the proper amount of ozone?  

I am not so sure that we are introducing the "wee bit" you indicate, as ozone generators for spas will produce from 50mg to 500mg into the system, thus proving ozone generators do in fact differ from one another.  However, what does concern us are large gaseous bubbles coming to the surface as ozone gas rather than oxygen, thus the reason for the injectors, mixing valves and contact chambers to allow the ozone the ability to complete it’s “search and find”, or it’s “seek and kill” mission resulting in oxygen before bubbling to the surface within the spa.

If a good ozonator would in fact reduce the need for “more” chemicals, would that not represent less chemical consumption, less TDS resulting in clean water.  And theoretically, couldn't it possibly eliminate the need for chemical sanitizers and oxidizers?  I said "theoretically" and "possibly", not "actually".  We do in fact need a "contact killer".

And then of course, you could choose to use chemicals exclusively without an ozonator.  But then, what’s the point of having an ozonator in the first place?

[Mercure]

Ozone is indeed a potent and powerful oxidizer and sanitizer, but is it a chemical or a gas?  Isn’t ozone a gas derived from oxygen as you state or is it a chemical compound?

What is a chemical? Here's some possible definition:

1- Everything that you can express with a chemical formula is chemical:
So, water is a chemical H2O.  There's a lot of chemical reaction in you're body so YOU are chemical.
With this definition, ozone is a chemical.

2- Stuff that is reactive or have weird properties:
Bleach is a chemical because it remove the color on your shirt.  Glue is chemical because it stinks and sticks.
With this definition, ozone is a chemical.

3- Stuff that are man-made, that you don't find in nature.
At the pool and spa store, that's the stuff you buy in little plastic container and you add to water.
With this definition, ozone is not chemical. Think about the ozone layer.

4- The stuff I sell is natural.  The stuff you buy from the guy on the other side of the street is a chemical:
Look at this page:
http://c3.org/chlorine_knowledge_center/bbc7.html


Choose your own definition of what is a chemical.  If you like ozone, I suggest you to use a definition that classified ozone as "natural".  

[Vinny]

I don't have the extensive knowledge that Bill has but ...

Ozone is a gas to my knowledge. It's chemical composition is 3 oxygen atoms.

It doesn't "seek and destroy", it needs to bump into the bugs to be effective. Remember in a microscopic world a centimeter can be as large as a football field to us. There is a slight electric charge to the electrons that can make an unstable electron jump to another "body" if close enough and if it doesn't need a catalyst.

It needs to be at a certain concentration to allow enough ozone atoms to bump into the bugs to destroy them. The figures that come from manufacturers are they dissolved or at the ozone producing site (not dissolved)?

here are a couple of sites about ozone for drinking water:

http://www.ozoneapplications.com/watertreatment/ozone%20and%20water.htm

http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_bacteria_mold_viruses.htm

http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_properties.htm

It's all I can find on ozone during my research phase of buying a tub. I have to say after seeing what's needed to ozonate drinking water - spa ozonators aren't up to the task IMO.  As you read the above (if you do) remember their injecting 100% O2 and air is at 21% O2 - a 79% reduction in O2

Can they work - I believe they can. Do I have ozone on my tub - yes but only run it 8 hours a day. Without the off gas chamber (I don't have one) any unused ozone has to go somewhere - into the tub and that could damage the cover and headrests.

I run it for the "just in case" syndrome - IF it does anything, I have it process 5280 gallons a day in my 400 gallon tub. No it's not available 24/7 but it usually runs after my soak and then again mid day.

I still rely on chlorine to do it's part and at 2-3 ppm, it's effective. And by the time I get back into my tub, I'm usually soaking in close to 0 chlorine - unfortunately I really don't have knowledge of bromine - I've read it's very stable in hot water.

[J._McD]

I'm using Dichlor in my tub. I also have an ozinator connected to my 24X7  circulation pump. It's been in use for about 3 weeks. This system is new to me.
It is my understanding that the ozinator will assist in keeping the water cleaner, and thus reduce the amount of chemicals needed to maintain the water.  I cannot comment if the system is more economical. However, I was drawn to it under the pretense that I could keep my water just as clean (if not cleaner) with less, harsh chemicals in the water.

Question: Should I be keeping my dichlor balanced per the test strip, or reduce it slightly because I have the ozinator? For some reason, I was lead to belive to keep it at the proper levels via the test strip,  and in the long run, I'd need less chemicals to do that. But after reading this thread, should I also be keeping  a lower chlorine level in the water?

As far as TDS, I'm concerned. My tub is about a month old and has seen a large varity of users. I'm getting the alka selzter foaming (disapaites after the jets are turned off) and a bit a cloudy-ness that clearrs up after a few minutes.  

Wondering if I should change the water out?

Drew, changing you water because of the heavy use contributing to of accumulated matter including chemicals and TDS would not be a bad idea.  A new tub will see more “dirt” and traffic in the first 30 days as the new tub is introduced.  As a daily use patterns develop fewer guests outside the immediate family are using the spa.  In many cases, you will find 90% of the time 2 people or less are using the Hot Tub.  

I would recommend keeping dichlor present in the water as use stabilizes.  Obviously, what you are trying to accomplish is Clean, Clear Water with an invitation to drink.  Water should not be cloudy, it should not smell and you should be able to read the date on a dime in the bottom of the tub.  There are several things that will cloud water that need to be understood.  They all have different solutions.  They are lack of proper sanitation regardless of chemicals or ozone and include, body nutrients, oils, lotions, minerals and inadequate filtration.  When you have your pumps on and you turn them off, you water should be crystal clear.  If the water appears “fuzzy”, but the “fuzz” dissipates in a matter of seconds, this is the evidence of accumulated chemicals in the form of TDS.  The longer it takes to appear crystal clear, the higher the level of TDS.  This will not occur because of the gaseous form ozone, but will occur in chemically treated water.

Foaming on top of the water is all together different.  The root cause of foam is phosphates other wise known as soap, or residual soap rinsed out of what ever somebody wore into the water.  There are several ways to handle this problem, such as anti-foam which is silicone based and will leave a “bathtub” ring.  It would be suggested to mix anti-foam with 50% water in a “spray” bottle and spray it on the foam.  The results are the same and immediate, the use of chemical is reduced and the resulting affect of using chemicals will be minimized.  But then, the chemical companies say just add, dump, pour repeatedly to use MORE chemicals, I wonder why?

The best solution is to wear nothing into the tub that has soap residual, ie your birthday suit.

[Mendocino101]

I think what is not being mentioned is that many people today use mineral "stick" like N-2 or the frog along with ozone and bromine or di chlior, it is my understanding that this is what allows one to use less bromine or di chlior along with ozone that is again in use in many of todays spas .....I do not think a mineral stick or ozone is sold as a  way to save money but as a way to have lower ppm of bromine or di clior ...and that is where the advantage is....

[J._McD]

Chemical companies suggest keeping your chlorine at 1-3 ppm and bromine at 3-5 ppm regardless of whether an ozonator is being used or not. Tis is part of the reason why I don't fully understand the "cost savings" aspect of ozone.
Steve

If ozone is an alternative sanitizer, oxidizer proven to be effective, why would the chemical companies recommend the reduction of the use of their product?  Of course I understand their position which is the need to identify a “contact” killer that endorses the consumption of their product, and in certain instances it is needed.  

Now don’t go off on me, but let's open our minds and think out loud with me for the benefit of others.  Your statement above holds the chemical companies out as if they have written the bible and ALL of their information is credible, whereas you do not embrace the information of the Ozone industry as it might promote their product concept while you dismiss their information as unproven “scientifically”.  Why do they continue to exist?

Well then respond to this question, why are there so many people using ozone, and so many dealers selling or giving away ozonators that cost them money, and why are so many manufactures purchasing ozonators for resale to the public and the inclusion of ozone on their manufactured product?  Why spend the money?  “This is part of the reason why I don’t fully understand” where all of this disbelief is coming from when it appears no one really understands anything about ozone, but we sell it and people buy it because we are all fools and this is the biggest scam being perpetrated on the consuming public.  I DON’T THINK SO.

You say you “respect” my opinion.  Could it be, if I have indeed embraced ozone as a primary sanitizer, and I have put into service more than 5,000 ozonators, thus having more than 5,000 customers/consumers experiencing clean clear water that has an invitation to drink with virtually a very low amount of chemical applications, wouldn’t you naturally understand and expect that I would have a different level of understanding than you or others would?  Does this make me a “screwball" or an "ozone fanatic" that should not be believed.  

We wouldn’t be driving automobiles today if Henry Ford listened to his critics as they voiced their disbelief and considered him a fool and told him it couldn't be done.  That was in the early part of the 1900’s.  That was before the Japanees lost the war and focused their efforts on becoming industrialized, now THEY are the #2 global automaker in 50 years.  Look at what Henry Ford has caused to happen.

Are you aware that ozone was first understood and put into use in the 1890’s and was then most commonly used for water purification.

“Chemical companies suggest keeping your chlorine at 1-3 ppm and bromine at 3-5 ppm regardless of whether an ozonator is being used or not”   AND WHY WOULDN’T THEY.

[J._McD]

What is a chemical? Here's some possible definition:

1- Everything that you can express with a chemical formula is chemical:
So, water is a chemical H2O.  There's a lot of chemical reaction in you're body so YOU are chemical.
With this definition, ozone is a chemical.

2- Stuff that is reactive or have weird properties:
Bleach is a chemical because it remove the color on your shirt.  Glue is chemical because it stinks and sticks.
With this definition, ozone is a chemical.

3- Stuff that are man-made, that you don't find in nature.
At the pool and spa store, that's the stuff you buy in little plastic container and you add to water.
With this definition, ozone is not chemical. Think about the ozone layer.

4- The stuff I sell is natural.  The stuff you buy from the guy on the other side of the street is a chemical:
Look at this page:
http://c3.org/chlorine_knowledge_center/bbc7.html


Choose your own definition of what is a chemical.  If you like ozone, I suggest you to use a definition that classified ozone as "natural".  

Thank you for your input and welcome to the pursuit of the truth.
Chemical = a substance used or made by chemistry, a substance used in or produced by the processes of chemistry.  =Ozone does not qualify as a chemical as it can not be produced through the process of chemistry, nor can it be manufactured or packaged.

Gas = a substance such as air, “chemistry” a substance such as air that is neither a solid not a liquid at ordinary temperatures and that has the ability to expand indefinitely.  =Ozone is a gas and is a derivitive of oxygen in the "air".

Natural = produced by nature, present in or produced by nature, rather than being artificially created by people = chemicals and ozone of which neither are natural as both are created in a process that is not necessarily a chemical process.

It would be my opinion that ozone is a gaseous form and not a chemical.  It would be my interpretation that a chemical is a compound or a substance that can be analyzed under a microscope.  It is a “solid” form of matter that can be identified, manufactured, packaged.  

I would welcome any learned explanation that can correct any misunderstanding and a correct interpretation regarding this issue.