Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: rubadubeh on October 01, 2007, 05:50:46 pm
-
When I was shopping for a tub, all the dealers explained to me that ozone was a option and how great it was but no one actually took the time to explain to me what it does.... nor did I ask...
I notice that my tub has a outlet and switch labled ozone. Is this worth adding?
Also, can someone explain to me what ozone does? In small words, please and thanks.
-
rubadubeh,
OK I'll take a shot at this since everyone is staying away.
Really basic, ozone is a unstable oxygen molecule. It is a very powerful oxidizer and a indiscriminate killer, meaning it will oxidize everything it comes in contact with. The downside is it has next to no lasting residual so its converted back to oxygen in a matter of seconds. There has been a lot of discussion and debate on the subject and its usefulness. In a commercial or municipal water plant, ozone is very effective, in a Hot Tub there are many questions.
With out starting up the whole debate, you can do a search on ozone. If you go back about 1 year you should be able to get lots of information so you can make your own decision. FWIW my tub does have ozone and I'm happy with it.
-
I heard that if you find a mouse in a beer bottle eh, you will get free beer eh?
Thanks In Canada, You say you have it and you are happy.... What makes you happy?? Does it reduce chemical costs??
Chris in Toronto...
-
Ozone does something in a tub but possibly not much.
It is as In Canada says a unstable O3 molecule that is looking to break the bond and will attach itself onto anything it can. It has been reported it can last up to a whole 22 seconds in the hot water. It's usefulness is probably associated with how much ozone an ozonator puts out and how much contact time it has to possibly attach itself to something. Keep in mind that in the microscopic world of electrons a 1/2 inch is as far as Pluto is to the Earth so that shows how effective it can be. Once the ozone bubble hits the water's surface it's done.
Does ozone work - I can say after experimenting on my own tub that yes it does - a little. My tub got a whole extra day before clouding up with bacteria using ozone 24/7. My ozonator isn't the most powerful out there and maybe with a more powerful one it would last longer.
But there can be downsides to an ozonator - it will attack the spa cover and spa pillows if it off gasses.
I plan on replacing my ozonator with a more powerful one in a few months. I may not use it if it produces too much ozone and off gasses to the spa.
-
Ozone does something in a tub but possibly not much.
It is as In Canada says a unstable O3 molecule that is looking to break the bond and will attach itself onto anything it can. It has been reported it can last up to a whole 22 seconds in the hot water. It's usefulness is probably associated with how much ozone an ozonator puts out and how much contact time it has to possibly attach itself to something. Keep in mind that in the microscopic world of electrons a 1/2 inch is as far as Pluto is to the Earth so that shows how effective it can be. Once the ozone bubble hits the water's surface it's done.
Does ozone work - I can say after experimenting on my own tub that yes it does - a little. My tub got a whole extra day before clouding up with bacteria using ozone 24/7. My ozonator isn't the most powerful out there and maybe with a more powerful one it would last longer.
But there can be downsides to an ozonator - it will attack the spa cover and spa pillows if it off gasses.
I plan on replacing my ozonator with a more powerful one in a few months. I may not use it if it produces too much ozone and off gasses to the spa.
I agree, except I have gone the other route. I have removed my ozonator.
-
Does ozone work - I can say after experimenting on my own tub that yes it does - a little. My tub got a whole extra day before clouding up with bacteria using ozone 24/7. My ozonator isn't the most powerful out there and maybe with a more powerful one it would last longer.
I don't dispute any individual's experience with ozone but in my experience with my own spa and many hundreds I've dealt with in people’s yards I am a very firm believer in a good CD ozonator. The cheap $99 UV units aren't worth much IMO so I always want to qualify my statements that it be a good ozonator, have a good long contact chamber and this is also where I like circ pumps because you can get the ozone 24/7 (though I'd still like a good ozonator on a spa that filtered 4 hrs per day with a 2-speed pump if that's your setup).
-
I don't dispute any individual's experience with ozone but in my experience with my own spa and many hundreds I've dealt with in people’s yards I am a very firm believer in a good CD ozonator. The cheap $99 UV units aren't worth much IMO so I always want to qualify my statements that it be a good ozonator, have a good long contact chamber and this is also where I like circ pumps because you can get the ozone 24/7 (though I'd still like a good ozonator on a spa that filtered 4 hrs per day with a 2-speed pump if that's your setup).
Thought I don't use my ozonator any more, my experience has been that ozone definitely helps manage water.
-
Here's a suggestion...
If you ever get told how wonderful ozone is and how much it will save you in chemical costs during your shopping experience, ask for data from them to back that information up... Watch the look you get... ;)
In the past 15 years, I've heard anywhere from 10 -90% chemical savings with the addition of ozone. Granted, there are differing qualities of ozone out there. Mostly, it's just a tool used to sell more spas and increase margins so they come up with ficticious numbers to make it sound good.
Learn proper watercare and how to be proactive and ozone is not needed.
-
I don't dispute any individual's experience with ozone but in my experience with my own spa and many hundreds I've dealt with in people’s yards I am a very firm believer in a good CD ozonator. The cheap $99 UV units aren't worth much IMO so I always want to qualify my statements that it be a good ozonator, have a good long contact chamber and this is also where I like circ pumps because you can get the ozone 24/7 (though I'd still like a good ozonator on a spa that filtered 4 hrs per day with a 2-speed pump if that's your setup).
I've asked this question before and never got an answer. Which are good ozonators and why?
I've found that the JED ozonator (model 103) puts out 4 grams per day. All Del ozonators put out about that or less (the company said their cd & uv ozonators put out the same ozone) and the prozone unit PZ-1 puts out 8 grams per day (according to prozone). I know there's balboa and probably others - which to choose.
I do have an UV Del ozonator that supposedly puts out as much as a Del cd ozonator. It runs through approx 10' of tubing and I posted my findings. Because I didn't get spectacular findings running 24/7 (one day is not spectacular to me) I feel that adding a higher output ozonator may give me those findings ... I'm willing to try.
-
And ... the question still goes unanswered ... ;D
-
Hey Vinny
I don't want to sidetrack this but in my experience CD and UV are two totally different animals. Now I know this will cause a stir but I'll say it anyway. Only CD units generate any significant amount of ozone that is not absorbed by the unit itself. UV in the water treatment industry, is used a a sterilizer the fact that it produces a trace amount of ozone is only a byproduct and not its principal method. The amount of ozone a UV bulb produces is actually absorbed by the lamp itself. Basically it comes down to CD produces ozone gas along the same principal as a municipal water plant system does. UV is a sterilizer also used commercially but mainly in the waste water industry.
Now as for what CD unit is best, sorry I can't help you there
-
Hey Vinny
I don't want to sidetrack this but in my experience CD and UV are two totally different animals. Now I know this will cause a stir but I'll say it anyway. Only CD units generate any significant amount of ozone that is not absorbed by the unit itself. UV in the water treatment industry, is used a a sterilizer the fact that it produces a trace amount of ozone is only a byproduct and not its principal method. The amount of ozone a UV bulb produces is actually absorbed by the lamp itself. Basically it comes down to CD produces ozone gas along the same principal as a municipal water plant system does. UV is a sterilizer also used commercially but mainly in the waste water industry.
Now as for what CD unit is best, sorry I can't help you there
Well I realize that most CD units produce more than UV but Del specifically told me that their CD and UV ozonators produce the same amount of ozone. I know that UV is used as a sterilant as labs turn on UV bulbs to sterilize large areas and apparently they are running water past it in dialysis units and even using UV for inside furnaces to kill germs (I guess it doesn't take much UV contact time). But I assumed by what I've read that UV excites the O2 atom to break apart and become O3. The other "interesting" thing is that the Prozone unit is a hybrid type (whatever that means) UV unit and it seems to produce more ozone than any other unit that I have found so far and has a lamp life of 20,000 hours - just like a CD unit (minus the lamp). How these companies test or come up with the figures is a mystery to me.
I was all set to go CD but after getting the info from Del and seeing the Prozone info, it just doesn't make sense.
-
Vinny
From what I have learned UV sterilizes all "bugs" that pass by the lamp. So if you have 100 "bugs" in the tub and they all pass by the lamp you still have 100 "bugs", its just that they are unable to reproduce. So in sense UV is very effective, its just not ozone. The problem with UV is whats called "masking" when one bug hides behind another bug.
The line between the two is being blurred kind of like calling all cola drinks a coke
Personally, if I was to upgrade or replace my CD unit I would look at a proper contact chamber that sits in a upright position, I think Del shows one on their website. Then add a 4-5 mg per day CD ozone generator. The contact chamber will allow of gassing and you shouldn't have to worry about covers and pillows.
The hybrid units you mentioned would also be interesting and I think the combination of UV and ozone would be very effective
-
I am leaning towards the Prozone unit. I thought about the degassing chamber but - it requires additional plumbing for circ pumps > 10GPM which I believe mine is and it requires an activated charcoal filter replaced every year ... both a a PITA to me.
My idea was to add a long length of tubing to the exsisting tubing to act as a contact chamber and hope for the best. As I have mentioned, my tubing now is approx 10' long so if I added another 14 to 20 ' I would double to triple the length ozone would have to travel and hopefully would bump into more stuff. I was even going to coil it and position the coils vertically to have the water travel up and down to give the bubbles more time to absorb ... mad scientist at work.
From their website:
Features
Prozone Patented Corona Hybrid Arc Tube harnesses the high ozone concentrations of Corona Discharge generators while maintaining the simplicity and reliability of VUV technology.
Optional Prozone Patented Dynamic Venturi Injector Bypass System allows maximum ozone/water mixing for superior water quality. The bypass also means a quick retrofit installation or replacement for all existing ozone generators.
Rugged, functional housing: heavy extruded aluminum case for durability; translucent gasketing glows when system is on.
Low cost, low maintenance operation
Warranty – 2 years
Compatible with all major spa brands
Easily retrofittable to existing spas
Specifications and Features
Prozone Patented Corona Hybrid Arc Tube
Voltage: Prozone Solid State Ballast
110 VAC 60 Hz or 230/240 VAC 50/60 Hz
Connection: All common configurations available
Ozone Purity: 100%, no nitrogen byproducts
Arc Life (nominal): 20,000 hours
Operating Temperature: +25° F to +120° F
Weight: 3 lbs.
Dimensions: 8"W x 3½"D x 3"H
Case Construction: Extruded Anodized Aluminum
I'm sure some of it is hype as eveything else in this world has some, but if they can generate 8 grams a day that's an oweful lot compared to my UV ozonator.
-
My idea was to add a long length of tubing to the exsisting tubing to act as a contact chamber and hope for the best. As I have mentioned, my tubing now is approx 10' long so if I added another 14 to 20 ' I would double to triple the length ozone would have to travel and hopefully would bump into more stuff. I was even going to coil it and position the coils vertically to have the water travel up and down to give the bubbles more time to absorb ... mad scientist at work.
.
Vinny
The upright coils are a great idea, slowing down the water flow is important to allow for a higher contact time.
The mad scientist comment is hilarious. I really hope that you and I haven't re opened the whole ozone debate again. I guess we will see tomorrow if this threads post count triples in 24 hour, I blame myself
P.S. the activated carbon feature of the del contact chamber is a great way to control odour as well as adding a little filtering capacity. We use granular activated carbon at work for taste and odour control and it works great
-
Just like the rest of the clan here, I won't get into UV vs. CD and how much it saves, but I will say this:
As a dealer, I've found the tubs on my floor as well as at my customers' homes tend to stay "clearer" with ozone than with out.
That said, I do believe in the fact that ozone is a great oxidizer as well as a sanitizer, but only in conjunction with another sanitizing system. Do you still need sanitizer? Yes. Do you still need to shock? Yes. Can you keep your tub clean and clear with out it? Of course.
I just like it because it makes my life easier. I added one on my own Tiger River I have at home. (CD ozone, for those who are interested.)
Be wary of people that tell you you can get away with just ozone. It's a lie. My analogy for that is using ozone without another sanitizer is like taking a shower without soap. Sure you're cleaner than when you got in, but you're still not clean.
One thing that I didn't see mentioned on here though is that the ozonator is only working when the tub is circulating. If you have a tub that only kicks on a few times a day, it may not be as useful. I'm a Hot Spring/Tiger River dealer, so with our 24 hour circ pumps, we're getting the max output and benefits from the ozonator.
Hope that helps, and I always recommend it and I love mine. But like I said, it's not neccessary.
-
P.S. the activated carbon feature of the del contact chamber is a great way to control odour as well as adding a little filtering capacity. We use granular activated carbon at work for taste and odour control and it works great
The activated charcoal is for ozone destruction. There seems to be a port for the ozone bubbles to collect on top and then I guess a valve opens up and eliminates the unused ozone and the cycle starts again. You need to replace it yearly as it gets wet and the charcoal becomes useless after a while. I don't believe it doesn't have any water filtering effect.
-
Just a quick clarification (I hope) about UV and how it relates to ozone.
In general, for water applications, UV units operate at one of two wavelengths - 254 nanometers (nm) or 185 nm.
In the drinking water world, UV at 254 nm is used as a highly effective disinfectant approach. There are a number of types of UV254 units and essentially all are effective against bacteria and viruses, some are also quite effective against the protozoan Cryptosporidium.
While UV254 is effective at killing / inactivating microbes, it also does not produce ozone; rather it is often used as a method for quantitatively destroying ozone. So, any hot tub ozone generator that produces ozone is NOT operating at the germicidal wavelength of 254 nm.
Hot tub UV ozone generators use UV at 185 nm. UV at 185 nm is a totally different beast from UV at 254 nm. As UV radiation, UV185 has essentially no germicidal action. However, UV185 PRODUCES ozone and the ozone that is produced is the disinfectant by which microbes can be killed or inactivated.
By the way, the reason that UV254 can't be used effectively to disinfect a hot tub is mainly because it produces no "residual" disinfectant. So, unless you can have a "plug flow" situation in which ALL water from the tub is passed through UV prior to being put back into the tub, you are simply disinfecting the portion of the water that passes through the unit and then dumping that into untreated water in the tub. You can't get that "all water" situation with a pump that is recirculating into a tub.
If you had a situation in which you had two tubs and a single pipe fitted with UV254 connecting the two tubs, then you could pump the entire contents of one tub through the unit into the second tub and the water entering / filling that tub would be disinfected - but that isn't a real-world situation. And, there would still be biofilm issues unless you added some disinfectant to each tub after you had used the tub (again, UV produces no residual).
Best,
Vermonter
-
Are you "THE" vermonter? The one with the great system for water maintenance? I've seen you referenced on another site. Is there a link you could give me to your system. I'd love to check it out. I just bought balboa's new cd cartridge ozonator. We'll see how it goes.
-
Hey Vermonter,
How's everything going? Your becoming famous in other "water circles" as well!
tinybubbles,
His system is over at rhtubs in the forum FAQ section. It is an easy and effective system that a lot of us use.
-
Are you "THE" vermonter?
Hi tinybubbles!
Sorry for the slow response. Guilty as charged!
Vinny cited the way to get my "method" from the rhtubs site - which actually was put together as a response to a question from a poster about shocking, chlorine, etc. but it sort of took off as a "method". I was confused with much of the conflicting information that seemed to be circulating about chlorine, MPS, shock, etc. so, as a new tub owner back then, I decided to look into not only the chemistry of chlorine disinfection as it could (should) apply to use in hot tubs - and to come up with a simple, but "safe" approach to the use of chlorine in hot tubs. I've had nearly 6 years of trouble-free tub operation using it.
The CYA (associated with the so-called "chlorine lock") issue is something I'm looking into right now - at this point I think it is not of any concern as long as a proper chlorine regimen is used to maintain microbiological cleanlienss and as long as a tub is initially disinfected properly. There are both empirical data and considerable research over many years on real-world recreational water that would seem to support that position. That's not to say that CYA won't have an adverse affect on free chlorine efficacy; simply that the combination of long contact times of chlorine in hot tubs, the relatively slow generation time of bacterial pathogens in hot tub water, etc. make it a non-issue.
Enjoy your tub!
Best,
Vermonter
-
Hey Vermonter,
How's everything going? Your becoming famous in other "water circles" as well!
Hi Vinny!
Busy on a lot of fronts so not much time to be on the boards; plus you and a number of others are doing a great job on providing advice, etc. to those posting questions.
Not sure what other "water circles" are; aside from one other forum in which I've seen my "method" mentioned a few times.
I hope you are well.
Vermonter
-
Thank you Vinny and Vermonter!
-
Under FAQ there was a northman(something like that)style and dichlor dosing vermonter style. Is the dichlor dosing thread the one I am looking for?
-
Yes - the "What is the "Dichlor Dosing - Vermonter Style?" is the one that has my chlorine method. Northman's information deals with a much broader "total treatment" approach to daily through yearly hot tub maintenance and goes well beyond the single aspect of disinfection and shocking that I addressed.
In my personal situation I use a much simpler "total treatment" approach than what he has listed and it works for me; but it won't work for everyone. My personal "simple" approach has been effective for years and involves only the use of dichlor, Nature2 (or equivalent), ozone (I don't believe it is effective as a disinfectant as applied in my hot tubs and most others) and baking soda. That's all - and given that the ion and ozone are not treatments that require active maintenance, I'm basically down to dichlor and baking soda (for pH). If I don't use my tub for several weeks, as long as I have effectively treated my tub after the last use, I can open it up and the water will be clear and ready to use (I do add dichlor to about 0.5 - 1.0 ppm and let it circulate for about 10 minutes; just to be sure). I clean my filters perhaps two times a year (dishwasher approach) and they are the original filters (I have a 2001 HS Grandee).
My belief and experience is that chlorine disinfection and shocking can be a standardized routine that can pretty much be universally applied to all hot tubs; other aspects of water maintenance will depend on use, makeup water, type of tub, type of filtration, etc. and will vary considerably.
Vermonter
-
Thanks again. I'm all for simple! My tub is coming soon and I want to start off right from day 1.
-
Hi Vinny!
Busy on a lot of fronts so not much time to be on the boards; plus you and a number of others are doing a great job on providing advice, etc. to those posting questions.
Not sure what other "water circles" are; aside from one other forum in which I've seen my "method" mentioned a few times.
I hope you are well.
Vermonter
Vermonter,
I am fine, Thanks!
The other "water circle" is a pool forum where your method was mentioned. There is a very knowledgable chemical person there that mentioned your method and he seems to understand microbiology as well. He was able to explain the whole CYA / chlorine relationship and why using bleach in the tub is OK. I also learned that the hot tub itch bacteria has to be introduced and it just doesn't grow in a tub.
We did get into a discussion about microbiology and I explained the very little I have gotten from your posts. His discussion was what happens when you use dichlor exclusively and why there needed to be chlorine in the tub when using it to eliminate the fecal to oral contamination ... I knew what he was talking about but I didn't have an answer.
When he brought up "the vermont" method, I kind of chuckled. I guess he got it from some other forum. Other than Doc's and here, it's the only other water care forum I "participate" in - I don't go there much as some of the people seem closed minded on anything other than using bleach.
Is your daughter still persuing acting - hows that going?
Vinny
-
Vermonter,
Thanks for the clarification on the "two" different types of UV lamps, I am only familiar with the 254nm type used in the water treatment industry and didn't know of the 185nm type.
On another note did you ever get the information you needed on chloramination and its effects in the distribution system you had asked about.
-
Vermonter,
Thanks for the clarification on the "two" different types of UV lamps, I am only familiar with the 254nm type used in the water treatment industry and didn't know of the 185nm type.
On another note did you ever get the information you needed on chloramination and its effects in the distribution system you had asked about.
Hi ICe (appropriate acronym for your neck of the woods)!
Regarding the UV wavelength, most in the DW treatment industry are familiar with the 254 version and it is highly effective in microbial control; the 185 nm UV is less well known, so you have a lot of company in not having been familiar with it. The UV185 is often used in ultrapure water (UPW) applications; it's effectiveness on TOC reduction is well documented.
Regarding Chloramines...in the US there continues to be a movement toward their use vs. traditional chlorine; principally to reduce formation of Disinfection ByProducts (DBF). It certainly accomplishes that but there are adverse effects reported - some health / aesthetic effects suchs as skin irritation, eye irritation, etc. others from a microbial control standpoint. We were involved in a fairly extensive study on a Florida water system that had switched to chloramines and started having positive coliform results in the distribution system. I think this is a debate that will go on for some time.
Vermonter
-
Vermonter,
I am fine, Thanks!
The other "water circle" is a pool forum where your method was mentioned. There is a very knowledgable chemical person there that mentioned your method and he seems to understand microbiology as well. He was able to explain the whole CYA / chlorine relationship and why using bleach in the tub is OK. I also learned that the hot tub itch bacteria has to be introduced and it just doesn't grow in a tub.
We did get into a discussion about microbiology and I explained the very little I have gotten from your posts. His discussion was what happens when you use dichlor exclusively and why there needed to be chlorine in the tub when using it to eliminate the fecal to oral contamination ... I knew what he was talking about but I didn't have an answer.
When he brought up "the vermont" method, I kind of chuckled. I guess he got it from some other forum. Other than Doc's and here, it's the only other water care forum I "participate" in - I don't go there much as some of the people seem closed minded on anything other than using bleach.
Is your daughter still persuing acting - hows that going?
Vinny
Vinny,
The CYA debate is likely to continue.
The individual you reference contacted me awhile back and we've had a bit of communication on CYA. The ball is in my court now to get back to him with some articles, etc. but I haven't had the time to do a thorough review. At this time, my impression is that most of the concern about CYA is based on the well-known and documentable adverse effects of it on chlorine efficacy; but from what I can see, this effect does not translate into any concern for a hot tub application due principally to the long contact time chlorine has within a hot tub.
I've reviewed a large number of articles that seem to break into two camps - one camp being the "yes there is an effect" but that make no connection to the impact on use in hot tubs; the other camp being some very thorough studies conducted on swimming pools, etc. that, from real-world sampling, etc., show no adverse effect on the microbial safety of a pool at even very high CYA values.
The one piece of information I can't find (which surprises me) is what the generation time of Pseudomonas aeruginosa is in pool or hot tub water (in the absence of any disinfectant). In my thinking at this point, that is a key to being able to make a definitive statement regarding concerns (or lack) of CYA in hot tubs. I have sketched out a small study in which I might try to establish the generation time in my own hot tub water, but would have to wait until I drain and refill so I can have water that doesn't have silver ions in it. The problem with this study is that it would only represent one tub, one point in time, etc. but I still think it would help answer whether the generation time is minutes, hours or days.
My daughter had very limited success - and although things looked promising, she decided to come back to Vermont for her last two years of high school and focus on studies, etc. She graduates next year and is now looking at colleges; she plans to become a pediatrician.
Vermonter
-
I'm glad you two were able to speak. He was looking to hook up with a microbiologist to learn more.
I responded to a hot tub question at that pool site, responded as I do here and got blasted by the resident geniuses. Their interpertations of material they led me to was much different than mine and they would pooh pooh anything I said off and then couldn't answer my questions other than saying "because" (my interpetation). I am not a "because" type of person.
He chimed in and explained some things. He also led me to studies (I may have read them in the past) about bacteria, cysts and such along with chlorine/CYA studies. Other than the possible harmful human effects soaking in 100+ PPM CYA (1 month tub water) "normal" bacteria is still being killed even at 300+ PPM CYA (3 month water) - before he stepped in was a "thou shall not use dichlor" discussion ... of course I'm sure the ones that were saying that never read his posts to me. I respect him enough to have finished that conversation but because of the attitude of others there I don't intend to post there again.
Just one bit of info about CYA if you didn't discuss it with him - CYA buffers the corrosive effects of chlorine so if you intend to add chlorine (not using dichlor) for the study it could cause corrosion issues if you plan on testing for a long period of time. 20 PPM CYA will buffer to about 4 PPM chlorine.
One last question if you don't mind ... His concern about soaking in water without chlorine was the fecal (or it could be rectal) to oral contamination. My thoughts after he mentioned it were that it would take 20 minutes for x number of bacteria to double and another 20 minutes for the 2x bacteria to double - at this point (maybe sooner) chlorine would be introduced and the bacteria will hopefully be killed. Is this type of contamination really a concern during use?
Thanks!
Vinny
-
Hi ICe (appropriate acronym for your neck of the woods)!
Regarding the UV wavelength, most in the DW treatment industry are familiar with the 254 version and it is highly effective in microbial control; the 185 nm UV is less well known, so you have a lot of company in not having been familiar with it. The UV185 is often used in ultrapure water (UPW) applications; it's effectiveness on TOC reduction is well documented.
Regarding Chloramines...in the US there continues to be a movement toward their use vs. traditional chlorine; principally to reduce formation of Disinfection ByProducts (DBF). It certainly accomplishes that but there are adverse effects reported - some health / aesthetic effects suchs as skin irritation, eye irritation, etc. others from a microbial control standpoint. We were involved in a fairly extensive study on a Florida water system that had switched to chloramines and started having positive coliform results in the distribution system. I think this is a debate that will go on for some time.
Vermonter
Vermonter
Using the assumption that you are from Vermont, I'm south of you so its you guys that the ICe acronym applies to ;)
One of the reasons we started to use chloramination was to combat positive coliform tests in the distribution system, too date it appears to have been very successful. I wonder if your Florida study issues are due to water temperature