Talk:Swimming pool sanitation

Cleanup
This article is in terrible shape. It reads more like an essay (see WP:NOT), not an encyclopedia article. It lacks references, wikilinks for the most part, doesn't conform to WP:MOS and has a bit of POV. A major cleanup effort needs to be done to get this page in better shape. --Rkitko (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What part is POV? -anon

POV = Point of View -Carl

This article is great
This article is one of the best in wikipedia. Clean up if you want to, but I think it is very good. Wasn't it originally in the swimming pool article and them moved here to shorten that article. -Anon

PURE CRAP
The section on pool pumps is crap. 750 watts per hour? A watt is one joule per second. A kWh is 3,600,000 Joules. 3/4 hp is not 750 Watts. 1 hp is approx 746 W. Someone needs basic physics and algebra.

This 550W "italian" pump which puts out 750W sounds like a sales pitch. Where is the citation? And why should one trust an author who misunderstands what a Watt is in the first place. 24.158.38.71 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just simply pathetic
Both the discussions of history of sanitation and the technology are so awful, even an industry pro could become confused. Don't trust a word of this nonsense. 24.158.38.71 02:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Help this page
There's a big problem on the information in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeridu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing section
An important section is completely missing. The importance of showering properly (which means without swim suit) to prevent faecal pathogens entering the water. No amount of water treatment can make up for that as the bacteria can remain viable for some time. Malcolm.boura (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Pool Sanitisation Technology
Any mention of any "eclear" tech (www.eclear.co.za) should be investigated since people with interests in this company have been posting poorly-disguised advertising copy in this article. @eclear guys: come on, don't insult your customers' intelligence. --41.145.120.185 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ill health effects of pool sanitation?
Although there may already be an article about this topic (I've yet to find it) I think this article would have the appearance of being more "well balanced" if it included a section discussing the CONS of pool sanitation. From reading this article you kind of get the idea that putting your toe in a lake might kill you. But seriously - chlorine (the predominant disinfectant used in pools) is known to cause some pretty serious health problems and I tend to find that there is very little awareness about the topic (largely due to articles like this probably written by the short sighted government - I mean... neutral POV... :S) even amongst people like myself who swim competitively and work at pools. Check this http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/swimming/chlorine/asthma.htm for more information. --The Man in the Ceiling (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Too much bias towards commercial "solutions" without rational debate on the actual problems. --41.145.120.185 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Safety
Shouldn't "Only pools and spas that contain filtered and disinfected water can be considered safe places to swim" be worded more strongly? Something like "Only sociopaths would risk their health and the safety of the free world by swimming in anything other than a filtered, disinfected, guarded, well fenced, state approved, sterile recreation medium." anon 24.58.23.173 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Need citation
"Ground level ozone is widely recognized as a pollutant and greenhouse gas and can cause respiratory problems such as asthma and use in swimming pools are therefore being fased out."

This statement contains several claims that need supporting facts and citations. I'm not a pool expert, but my understanding is that use of ozone generators is in fact increasing for both pool and potable water sterilization. Ozone generators are highly recommended over chlorine in the book "Water Storage: Tanks, Cisterns, Aquifers and Ponds" by Art Ludwig, page 71. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.83 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to improve this article
This article needs a tremendous amount of work. Before I make any edits, I want to note that I do have a potential partial conflict of interest with the subject matter of this page, as the American Chemistry Council is a client of my employer. I know ACC would like this article to be more accessible, particularly as chemicals are frequently used to sanitize swimming pools and hot tubs. As it stands now, and as warning templates have indicated for more than a year, this article is nearly impenetrable. As I get started, strive to make only edits in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and, when necessary, supported by reliable, third-party sources. Please feel free to discuss issues related to this page and my editing here or on my Talk page. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have a few options. You could post any proposed changes here; just copy the text you want to change to this talk page, and update it here, and it can be reviewed; if its kosher someone can add it back to the article.  The other option is to provide us with links to sources for the information you wish to change; someone here could evaluate those sources and then work the information they contain back into the article.  If needed, I could help where I can.  I admitedly know little about pool sanitation chemicals, but I do know a bit about Wikipedia, and I could help you work through the hard bits.  -- Jayron  32  02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My proposed changes are not sweeping, but should be helpful to readers. Here is the current version:


 * Swimming pool sanitation refers to methods for improving the visual clarity and reducing levels of microflora, such as bacteria and viruses in swimming pools. Proper sanitation is important to prevent the spread of diseases and pathogens between swimmers. Unsanitized water may also support the growth of algae. Poor pool maintenance may lead to low levels of disinfectants and clogged filters that may place swimmers at risk for diseases and infections. The only way to ensure proper sanitation is to test the swimming pool water with a pool water test kit and fresh reagents.


 * And my proposed replacement:


 * Swimming pool sanitation refers to methods for ensuring healthy conditions in pools, hot tubs and similar recreational water venues. Proper sanitation is needed to maintain the visual clarity of water and to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases. Sanitation methods include filtration to remove pollutants, disinfection to kill infectious microorganisms, swimmer hygiene to minimize the introduction of contaminants into pool water, and regular testing of pool water, including chlorine and pH levels.


 * The first sentence is revised to focus on "ensuring healthy conditions" which is the goal of sanitation in a nutshell. The more specific goal of combating disease is now described in the second sentence. The third and final sentence covers specific methods and all the same ground as the rest of the current paragraph, but in what I believe is a more concise and coherent manner. On a specific note, I've changed "microflora" to "microorganisms" for technical accuracy; the (very short) article Flora (microbiology) even notes that microflora is "technically a misnomer". I haven't included any references because I don't think they are strictly necessary, but this CDC page provides some detail regarding chlorine and pH. I'd like to see this paragraph replace the first; please move it or, if you concur, let me know if you're OK with me doing the same. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good man. Now we need to just continue working on referencing and fleshing out the more detailed part of the article.  I moved your text to the article since I see nothing at all controversial about it.  -- Jayron  32  17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Electronic oxidation claims
Moving forward on this article, there is a very, very large amount of unsupported information in this article. Some of it can be sourced and should be, however for the moment I'd like to identify one paragraph in this section which I believe has too many issues to leave alone. Some of the statements contained within cannot be verified because they simply are not true, while others are unverified promotional claims which have no business in an encyclopedia article. Here is that paragraph, with specifically problematic passages in boldface:


 * Traditionally strong chemical oxidizing agents have been used, especially simple chlorine compounds such as sodium hypochlorite. However, with microorganisms developing resistance to chlorine and harmful chlorine disinfection byproducts, healthier more effective alternatives to chlorine and bromide have been sought. Chemical free, ECO friendly disinfection technologies that are 100% effective against waterborne pathogens include the combined use of electronic oxidation and copper ionisation. Electronic oxidation produces OH (hydroxyl), O1 (atomic oxygen), H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) and O2 (molecular oxygen) from the water molecule (H2O) itself. These natural oxidisers have a higher oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) value than chlorine, ozone or bromine and is completely non-toxic.  Electronic oxidation produces an oxygen residual in the water which is combined with copper ionization to provide very effective, healthy pool sanitation.  This innovative technology was developed and patented by e-clear Technologies in South Africa and is 100% chlorine and salt free and does not produce any harmful disinfection byproducts.

In the first place, there's no such thing as a microorganism developing true resistance to chlorine. This NIH study discusses temporary resistance, whereby the "most resistant microorganisms were able to survive a 2-min exposure to 10 mg of free chlorine per liter." A similar NIH study can be found here. Meanwhile, the references to oxidation being "chemical-free" and "eco-friendly" and "100% effective" are basically marketing-speak (re: chemical-free) or unsupported (re: effectiveness). The further claim that electronic oxidation provides "very effective, healthy pool sanitation" is the kind of claim one will only see on websites seeking to sell such technologies. The same goes for the claim that it is an "innovative technology" patented by the named company; other claims in the sentence may be true but are not strictly relevant and are likewise promotional. I would suggest that this paragraph be removed or pared back to simply note that these technologies exist, without repeating their specific claims. Thoughts? NMS Bill (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds really good. I would recommend paring this down as well.  As you suggest, replacing this blatant spam with a neutrally worded description of the existing technology, without blatantly advertising one company, would be a great idea.  Since you're the expert here, why not take a crack at it?  -- Jayron  32  05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you agree; I've spent a few days preparing an alternate section, and here is what I propose to replace the entire paragraph with:
 * Conventional halogen-based oxidizers such as chlorine and bromine are convenient and economical primary sanitizers for swimming pools and provide a residual level of sanitizer that remains in the water. There are, however, conditions in heavily-used commercial and/or public swimming pools whereby supplemental oxidation is warranted. In these instances Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) can be employed whereby water contaminants are oxidized by one or more of four different precursors: ozone, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, and air in combination with UV radiation and in some instances a catalyst such as titanium dioxide (TiO2).  These AOPs react with water (H2O) to produce powerful oxidants such as hydroxyl radical (OH&middot;), singlet oxygen (O) and molecular oxygen (O2).


 * Rather than "electronic oxidation" which has no entry in Wikipedia and is more closely associated with ad copy, AOPs are well-covered already. All around, it is much more accurate and clear about the use of these secondary processes. Let me know what you think, and feel free to make the change if you think it's ready. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So I went ahead and changed out the paragraph a few minutes ago. Let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone also check the Sanitation section of Swimming pool I was looking for information about the copper/oxygen system as I was trying to verify the claims, but it looks like an advertisement for an ECO company in the Swimming pool wiki article (Sanitation section). Looks like it was similar to what you were editing here. Maybe added here and there by an advertiser, and later removed here (but not in Swimming pool). (sorry for not knowing the wiki/talk etiquette - I am still a non Wiki person.  Can someone please remove the same advertising from Swimming Pools - in the "Sanitation" section, or add the process into this article?) - 17:47, Aug 9 2010 (CST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.217.69 (talk)

Prevention of diseases
I propose another substantive revision of this article, specifically a rewrite of the section titled Prevention of diseases in swimming pools and spas. At present, the section is extraordinarily long (approx. 3,000 words) and contains precious few citations, so it is difficult for a lay reader to assess the accuracy of what is right now very technical language. The section has also been the focus of piecemeal revision where knowledgeable editors have removed specific inaccuracies. However, the problem is much bigger and, at this point, I believe most of it is simply not worth saving. A rewrite is needed.

The section I propose to replace it with -- available for review in my user space here -- includes a straightforward explanation of the principles of disease prevention, a detailed but concise discussion of chlorine and bromine (by far the most popular methods), and a light touch on alternatives. The sources I rely upon are primarily from the CDC, as well as industry publication Pool & Spa News. I should note that one source, the Water Quality and Health Council, is affiliated with the American Chemistry Council, with whom I work (as previously mentioned on this page), though it is high-quality and suppots a basic detail about the importance of routine monitoring. I don't believe any of this is controversial, but because it involves replacing a large amount of text, I'd like to open this up for comment first. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving forward with these edits now, per discussion here. NMS Bill (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Contaminants and potential for disease
I've just posted my latest and (for now) last major revision to this page; I rewrote two very long and confusing sections about contaminants in pools and specific diseases as one section which is more concise and consequently much more useful to the lay reader. Concurrent with this, I have moved the "Typical filtration" section lower in the article; it is still my belief that this section is far too detailed -- perhaps it deserves a separate article? -- too technical and lacking proper sources. As such, I've placed an appropriate template message on this specific section as I have removed one from the top of the article itself. If you have any thoughts, please get in touch with me at my talk page. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

History Section Needed
I would really like to see a history section. I have heard elsewhere that chlorination began in earnest when people realized that diseases like polio were being spread through swimming pools, but I'd like to know more about this history. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life
— Assignment last updated by Jason.DeLaCruz1313 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)