Floatation tank sanitation – we are squeaky clean

Posted by LLJCL on 14th May 2008 in floatation

The floatation tank differs from traditional spas in 3 important ways:

1. it is salt water, not clear water
2. it is single person not multiple person use – thus the possibility
of one user’s organic waste harming another is eliminated.
Continuous chlorine levels and continuous pump running is not
necessary. Tank filtering occurs between sessions.
3. it is a closed device, not open-air — this means that combined
chlorine (chloroamines or chloroform) will not escape quickly,
thus increasing the amount that the client will inhale. And this
is detrimental.

Next, I would like to mention the 3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles which demonstrate that a UV/H202 sanitation system compares favorably with a chlorine approach. st

* “Disinfection of Circulating Water Systems by Ultraviolet Light
and Radiation” – Richard W Gilpin, Water Research Vol. 19 No. 7
p.839-848 –
http://static.livingcosmos.org/floatation/odh/uv-gilpin.jpg
* “The Use of Ultraviolet Light in the Treatment of Water in Public
Spas and Hot Tubs” – Robert A. Crandall, Journal of Environmental
Health, Vol 49, No 1 p. 16-23 –
http://static.livingcosmos.org/floatation/odh/uv-crandall.jpg
* “Public Pool Disinfection: The effectiveness of ultraviolet
light/hydrogen peroxide” – James D. Dingman, Journal of
Environmental Health. Vol. 52 No. 6 p. 341-343 –
http://static.livingcosmos.org/floatation/odh/uv-dingman.jpg

Finally, before the Wisconsin Department of Health approved the UV/H202 protocol for floatation tanks, they required 21 days of pathogen analysis reports. Here is one of them –
http://static.livingcosmos.org/floatation/odh/pathogen-analysis.jpg

The final document of interest is a water quality log, similar to the one used for pools and spas except that hydrogen peroxide residual is measured instead of chlorine – http://static.livingcosmos.org/floatation/odh/water-quality-log.jpg

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.