ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

SWGs, salt water chlorine generators, chlorinators,
ozone generators, UV systems, . . .
larryc

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby larryc » Sat 02 May, 2009 07:27

If the system kept the pool water clear for the first full year but has only one day in the second year it is likely a filter problem, assuming the water chemistry testing is the same as done in the first year. Usually the first year is a little trickier than the second. The toll free support line at 1-800 ION SWIM is available six days a week at no charge and there is no reason you cant get your pool clear again. Backwash and rinse the filter twice in a row and maybe you can get it unchanneled. Double check the ph test kit you are using. You spent good money on this product and call us every day until this is resolved. Larry Couture CEO


Wantapool???

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby Wantapool??? » Thu 07 May, 2009 09:04

Go to hell wrote:I had the Ecosmarte system installed in my concrete pool as a part of a complete renovation of the pool (new filter, pump, acid wash etc.)three years ago. I wanted to swim in fresh water and bought the salesman's hype. It was HUGE disappointment.

There may be people out there that can get this system to work in a reasonable manner. Despite years of pool experience from day one, I could not.

The manual Ecosmarte provided was nothing short of useless and I could never keep the pool algae free for more than a day at a time. I ended up spending better than an hour a day on maintenance to no avail and could not leave the pool for more than a day unattended without the water going green.

The ecosmarte system ended up staining my pool copper blue and still wouldn't touch the algae.

I wrote to the company to complain and they told me I had exceeded my 60 day warranty and could not help me. I really feel I gave the product a fair chance for two years and finally gave up in frustration.

After two years of experimenting with every variable possible, even with the support of their local representative, I yanked it out and installed a salt water system.

Chemical free? Not at all I spent more on chemicals in the two years I had the Ecosmarte system than I ever did with chlorine and always felt I was swimming in a soup of algaecide.

This product simply did not even come close to working for me and ended up costing me a fortune to repair the damage to the pool.

The salt water system I now have is trouble free (as was my original chlorine system) and effortless.

As for the eco-"not so"-smarte system forget it. You will not convince me (or a friend who had a similar experience) that this product is ready for the market.

I actually paid the money to ship my ecosmarte system back to the company to show my displeasure. They have never followed up.

Back to the drawing board Ecosmarte!!!


RonB


GTH,
Please tell us the circumstances of your pool. Wereis it located, what climate is it in, size, daily use, dogs, leaves, etc. This kind of info would be helpful for those with similar conditions.
Thanks,
Wantapool???
chem geek
Pool Industry Leader
Pool Industry Leader
Posts: 2381
Joined: Thu 21 Jun, 2007 21:27
Location: San Rafael, California

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby chem geek » Thu 14 Oct, 2010 20:04

FYI. I have an updated post here showing kill times for chlorine vs. copper vs. silver that fills in some gaps of understanding. Generally speaking, copper ions are better than silver ions at normal concentrations used in pools (0.4 ppm or 400 ppb for copper and 20 ppb for silver). However, though most such bacterial kill times from copper ions prevent uncontrolled bacterial growth, this is not true for Escherichia coli which is a common bacteria found in fecal matter. Copper ions kill Legionella pneumophila faster than chlorine. Also, metal ions are mostly ineffective against most viruses and protozoan oocysts.
Guest

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby Guest » Tue 22 Feb, 2011 17:22

For the record the US EPA in Sept 2010 approved copper ions for numerous off label bacterial, viral and fungal kill rates. Specifically and also confirmed by NIH cryptosporidium, polio virus, giardia cyst and ataph bacteria are highly copper toxic. It is not accurate to state that chlorine is more effective than copper against these pathogens. Further when a particle is vaporized by chlorine with a shopck no method competes with the inactivation or kill rate.

Don't be mislead by the UV people-- no scientific study demonstates the microbes swimming back thru the pool jets to be exposed to the lamp. Nor have I seen studies where a UV system puts output greater than a single day of sunshine on the surface of the pool.

The key to all of this is sanitizer level, ph and filtration. Cartridges are only compatible with pools that reach a weekly chlorination curve via shock, other wise they simply host algae spore, human skin and blood cells from exfoliating swimmers and biofilms-- the precursers to the stuff we should worry about in pool water. Dealers must be knowledgeable or they should not be selling alternatives to chlorine. Consumers must be be prepared to test the water weekly. check the pressure guage, and use and autovacuum or brush. Without throwing too many stones at our 2007 negative post, suffice it to say Ecosmarte is not for people with cartridge filters or those who beleive a weekly water test (twice weekly in the desert) to be burdensome.
chem geek
Pool Industry Leader
Pool Industry Leader
Posts: 2381
Joined: Thu 21 Jun, 2007 21:27
Location: San Rafael, California

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby chem geek » Tue 22 Feb, 2011 21:14

Pool User wrote:For the record the US EPA in Sept 2010 approved copper ions for numerous off label bacterial, viral and fungal kill rates. Specifically and also confirmed by NIH cryptosporidium, polio virus, giardia cyst and ataph bacteria are highly copper toxic. It is not accurate to state that chlorine is more effective than copper against these pathogens. Further when a particle is vaporized by chlorine with a shopck no method competes with the inactivation or kill rate.

This is absolutely, positively NOT true. The EPA approval is for copper ALLOYS (to kill pathogens on surfaces) as described in this link, NOT copper ions, and this was done in February, 2008. This link indicates that copper TUBING produced a 1.3-log (95%) reduction in Crypto after 24 hours. Please give a link to the EPA website and to NIH that support your claims regarding copper IONS at concentrations used in pools.

Concentration means everything and the copper level found in pools is similar to that in blood serum which bacteria that live in the gut readily handle with no problem. Read the link I gave which listed numerous scientific peer-reviewed papers in respected journals supporting this fact. Copper is not very effective at these concentrations against many viruses either. It is faster than chlorine at killing Legionella pneumophila, but does NOTHING for fecal bacteria or blood-borne bacteria. That's a fact. Read the science.

Specifically for bacteria, copper ions at the concentrations used in pools do not even inhibit, let alone kill, fecal bacteria including Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus which chlorine kills in less than 1 minute. Chlorine kills Pseudomonas aeruginosa about 40 times faster than copper ions (and copper doesn't control some phenotypes at all). Chlorine kills Acinetobacter baumannii about as quickly as copper ions. Copper ions kill Legionella pneumophila about 5 times faster than chlorine.

Specifically for viruses, chlorine inactivates Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) at least 12 times faster than copper ions. Copper ions have no effect on Vacciniavirus while chlorine inactivates this virus. Chlorine inactivates Poliovirus at least 100 times faster than copper ions. Chlorine inactivates Coliphage MS-2 over 70 times faster than a copper/silver ion combination. Chlorine inactivates Influenza over 100 times faster than copper ions.

Specifically for protozoan oocysts, chlorine inactivates Naegleria fowleri over 40 times faster than copper ions.

Pool User wrote:Cartridges are only compatible with pools that reach a weekly chlorination curve via shock, other wise they simply host algae spore, human skin and blood cells from exfoliating swimmers and biofilms-- the precursers to the stuff we should worry about in pool water.

Also, where do you get that cartridge filters require weekly chlorination shocking or else they host algae spores? Yes, all filters catch human skin remnants, suntan lotion, and other substances that do not completely oxidize and are large enough to get caught directly or to get coagulated to get caught in the filter, but the chlorine levels going through the cartridge filters prevent any algae growth in them as well as biofilms. Sand filters are more likely to get channeling with dead spots that would allow biofilms to grow, though in residential pools that's not that common. Also, regarding the earlier post about cartridge filters needing frequent cleaning, this depends on the size of the filter. If one gets one oversized, then far less cleaning is needed. I have a 340 square foot cartridge filter for my 16,000 gallon pool that I only need to clean once a year and it gets virtually no pressure rise at all though the cartridges clearly need cleaning (mostly of suntan lotion).

Bacteria are killed before they form biofilms. While this paper showed greater reductions when a weekly shock was done, even without the weekly shock there were 5.5-log reductions in biofilm on plaster coupons and 6.7-log reductions in a sand filter. With shocking this increased to 6-log reductions on plaster coupons and 8.9-log reductions in a sand filter. The bather load simulation was high at the equivalent to 20 bathers in 7000 gallons. Residential pools don't get anywhere near this sort of organic loading.

(continued with next post...too many URLs)
chem geek
Pool Industry Leader
Pool Industry Leader
Posts: 2381
Joined: Thu 21 Jun, 2007 21:27
Location: San Rafael, California

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby chem geek » Wed 23 Feb, 2011 03:31

(continued from previous post)

Note that solid copper (and typical copper alloy) has an effective concentration over 10 million times higher than the concentration of copper ions in pools. Even so, the claims allowed by the EPA say that this kills 99.9% of bacteria within two hours which is something that chlorine does in less than 1 minute for fecal bacteria. Actual clinical trials with copper alloys (60%+ copper) typically showed roughly 90% reductions in bacterial load (the surfaces must be cleaned regularly to achieve the 99.9% kill rates). However, if you read this link in my earlier post, you would find the following scientific papers showing how copper ions at the VERY LOW concentrations used in pools have ZERO effect on fecal bacteria:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)00213-Q
"no inactivation of E. coli was observed after exposure to 0.4 or 0.8 mg/l cupric chloride after 60 min".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC95116/pdf/jb002145.pdf
gives a MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) for Escherichia coli of copper ions of 1.3 mM to 3.5 mM depending on strain, but even 1.3 mM is (1.3 millimole/liter) * (63.546 g/mole) = 82.6 mg/L (ppm) copper which is far higher than pool/spa concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2798663/
showed the MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) for Staphylococcus aureus of 200 µM (12.7 ppm) copper so 0.4 ppm copper would have no effect on this bacteria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563648/
showed the MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) for copper-sensitive strains of Enterococcus faecium of 4 mM (254 ppm copper) so 0.4 ppm copper would have no effect on this bacteria and I presume that this is also true for Enterococcus faecalis.

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/69/4/2313
for Pseudomonas aeruginosa gives a MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) for copper ions of 2 mM (127 ppm) copper though even lower 0.06 mM (3.8 ppm) copper showed only a significant lag of around 20 hours before growth occurred to normal levels by 30 hours. The MBC (minimum biocidal concentration) for an apparent complete kill in 5 hours in one growth medium (MSVP) was 0.01 mM (0.64 ppm) copper while in another (MOPSO) it was 0.125 mM (7.9 ppm) copper, but this is during the lag time where growth may subsequently resume after 20 hours from copper-resistant phenotypes.

(continued in next post...too many URLs)
chem geek
Pool Industry Leader
Pool Industry Leader
Posts: 2381
Joined: Thu 21 Jun, 2007 21:27
Location: San Rafael, California

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby chem geek » Wed 23 Feb, 2011 03:33

(continued from previous post)

Note that the EPA limit for copper in pools is set to the drinking water limit of 1.3 mg/L (ppm). In practice, copper levels in copper ion or ionization systems for pools and spas are usually kept at 0.4 ppm to prevent staining of pool surfaces (or if at 0.8 ppm then the pH is kept low at 7.0). Again, this is around 10 million times lower than the concentration of a copper solid or EPA-approved alloy.

As shown in this link, the three bacteria for which copper ions have no effect (Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus) are found in the lower G.I. tract (S. aureus is also found in the nose and on skin) and are potential pathogens. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the bacteria that causes hot tub itch/rash. It is also unlikely that any bacteria that can survive for an extended period of time in blood, such as the pathogenic Leptospira that causes Leptospirosis (aka Weil's disease), will be able to be killed by copper ions in pools since blood serum contains 0.7 to 1.5 ppm copper ions (see this link or this link for normal copper levels of 70 - 150 µg/dL = 0.7 - 1.5 mg/L). Normally in the gut, beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus sp. keep a check on the pathogenic bacteria, but if allowed to grow and flourish in pool water, the pathogenic bacteria can overwhelm the body when ingested or entering through broken skin and cause disease (usually diarrhea or infection).

(continued in next post...too many URLs)
chem geek
Pool Industry Leader
Pool Industry Leader
Posts: 2381
Joined: Thu 21 Jun, 2007 21:27
Location: San Rafael, California

ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby chem geek » Wed 23 Feb, 2011 13:06

(continued from previous post)

There are NO copper ion or ionization systems approved by the EPA for use without an EPA-approved disinfectant such as chlorine because no copper (or copper/silver, for that matter) ion or ionization systems pass EPA DIS/TSS-12. Also note that all NSF Standard 50 certified metal ion (copper/silver) ionization systems require a minimum of 0.4 ppm chlorine or 0.8 ppm bromine. You can also read more about copper/silver ion systems and why they are not used in public/commercial pools on their own on the Australian APVMA website and on the Health Canada website.

I really wish that these manufacturers and distributors of copper ion and ionization products (e.g. ECOsmarte®, PristineBlue®, (EcoOne) Rain Forest Blue, PoolRx, CL Free) would stop deceiving the public by making claims of killing bacteria, viruses, etc. when at pool concentrations they have absolutely ZERO inhibitory effect, let alone killing effect, on fecal bacteria and are not very effective against viruses or protozoa either. The EPA registration for copper ion products is as an algaecide only, not as a disinfectant. Note that Ecosmarte Planet Friendly has EPA establishment number 083498-MN-001, but they apparently do not have any products EPA registered in the PAN Pesticide Database (ionization systems, just like SWG systems, are not sold as chemicals to be added and are not normally registered).
linda Martin

Ecosmarte feedback

Postby linda Martin » Thu 08 Nov, 2012 17:48

wrenhome wrote:This is our second season of having a pool with Ecosmarte as the system. Last year, everything was great and the pool was crystal clear. This year, we have had our pool open two months, and there has yet to be more than one day in a row where the pool has been clear. We have worked with our pool company and called the Ecosmarte company with no luck. It is very frustrating. If I had to do it all over again, I probably wouldn't have bought the Ecosmarte system



I had a Ecosmarte pool system too. We pulled it out and got rid of it. $5,000. down the drain plus we had to get the pool refinished from the stains from the system. Pinch a Penny helped all they could. They finley put a new system in and worked a year on the stains. No luck with Ecosmarte . You got had too. If you have well water you do not want this system too. Water Healthy was who they sent out for our home ecosmarte system. Waste of time. Cost us $1,050. to rebed the system. Run from Ecosmarte and Water Healthy co.
Rude also.
gerg rengats

Re: ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby gerg rengats » Mon 06 Mar, 2017 14:46

I've had a POE system from ecosmarte since we built our house about 16 years ago. All my metal that the water touched corroded and I had to replace them. As soon as I replaced them I left the chamber that contains the copper and the titanium in line but turned off the electonics that causes the electrolysis. Since I have done that I have had no more corrosion. I still use the carbon/sand filter and have yet to see evidence that the filter is exhausted by smelling chlorine. I am guessing that the copper and titanium somehow converted the hard water I have to something that is corrisive to metal, probably something with salt in it. Anyone have any ideas if leaving the system this way will cause further harm to my house or to anyone that drinks this water.
ambrieproye
I'm new here
I'm new here
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 10 Sep, 2018 03:38
Location: Victoria

Re: ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby ambrieproye » Mon 10 Sep, 2018 03:43

I am looking for buying a water filter system, great thanks for sharing the feedback of ECOsmarte water purification. This will be helpful for me.
Teapot
Swimming Pool Superstar
Swimming Pool Superstar
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue 17 Oct, 2017 10:52
My Pool: 12 x 24 (45m3) liner pool, Triton TR60 filter with AFM glass media (Activate) and variable speed pump running 0.08HP
Location: UK

Re: ECOsmarte water purification systems feedback

Postby Teapot » Tue 11 Sep, 2018 01:46

ambrieproye wrote:I am looking for buying a water filter system, great thanks for sharing the feedback of ECOsmarte water purification. This will be helpful for me.

No you are a liar just trying to promote your product. Go away, preferably a long long way away.

Return to “Salt Water Chlorine Generators, Ozone, UV”

Who is online at the Pool Help Forum

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests