What are your thoughts about this product? I can only find info at www.nanaimomarinecentre.com a wholsale/retail marine store across the pond in Nanaimo.
Noflex Digestor Black Water Treatment
- Thread starter Jalepeno
- Start date
- Status
I couldn't find an MSDS for it, and nothing in any of the literature indicates what the active ingredient is...but their description of HOW it works leads me to suspect that it's very similar to Odorlos http://www.odorlos.com/products_info/faq2.htm Their directions for use..."one capful per person per day" seems be quite a bit also seems to require a LOT of attention to the system, but that's the only negative I could find. So if it's cost effective for you, try it.
Noflex Digestor
You can also get it at River Marine in Vancouver The product has just been introduced to the retail market. It has been use on for marine and industrial sewage high preformance treatment systems for a couple of years.It not like odorlos; you will be seeing it in more outlets by spring as for the amounts to use this is the worst case from a dead start "plugged holding tanks" "smells"dirty piping" . If you need any info on the product try sales@gemini-ltd.com the manufacturer
Link to info on Noflex Digestor sewage treatment
You can check directions for use in 3 different applications at following link
www.gemini-ltd.com/products/Zaal_Noflex_Digestor-715-84.html
You can check directions for use in 3 different applications at following link
www.gemini-ltd.com/products/Zaal_Noflex_Digestor-715-84.html
The instructions for use in RV tanks would be the same as marine...
http://www.gemini-ltd.com/upload_doc/techsheet/Mobile Holding tank systems Write up.pdf
The only downside I can see to it is that you do have to add EVERY DAY.
The gray water drains and tanks (sumps) instructions are very interesting!
As I said earlier, try it. However, the more I read, the more I wonder if it isn't overkill for the typical recreational marine systems.
http://www.gemini-ltd.com/upload_doc/techsheet/Mobile Holding tank systems Write up.pdf
The only downside I can see to it is that you do have to add EVERY DAY.
The gray water drains and tanks (sumps) instructions are very interesting!
As I said earlier, try it. However, the more I read, the more I wonder if it isn't overkill for the typical recreational marine systems.
Noflex Customer feed back
Just a note to report on your excellent product "Noflex Digestor". We used it as per instructions when on holiday for a week at the beginning of Sept, and there was no smell from the holding tank. Also the bowel at the bottom had always presented a challenge in keeping it clean well using the Noflex fixed that problem too. Usually after the boat has sat for a week the head always had an odor when it was first used, now I'm pleased to report there is no odor at all. Also, our tank is emptied by gravity and there was always an odor from the vent line when this was being done, not anymore. What a wonderful product Noflex is. As of yet I haven't had a chance to go into Thunderbird Marina and tell them about your product, but it is high on my list of to do's as is telling all our boating friends of your product.
Just a note to report on your excellent product "Noflex Digestor". We used it as per instructions when on holiday for a week at the beginning of Sept, and there was no smell from the holding tank. Also the bowel at the bottom had always presented a challenge in keeping it clean well using the Noflex fixed that problem too. Usually after the boat has sat for a week the head always had an odor when it was first used, now I'm pleased to report there is no odor at all. Also, our tank is emptied by gravity and there was always an odor from the vent line when this was being done, not anymore. What a wonderful product Noflex is. As of yet I haven't had a chance to go into Thunderbird Marina and tell them about your product, but it is high on my list of to do's as is telling all our boating friends of your product.
Re: Noflex Customer feed back
Chem-Free Holding Tank Bill Goes to Gov
Email 
Print
August 6, 2010 by Leanne Phillips 1 Comment
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my Daily RV Industry News Feed. Thanks for visiting,
Sherman Goldenberg
The California bill, AB 1824, that would ban the use of many holding tank chemicals, is swiftly on its way to its final destination – the governor’s desk.
The California Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds (CalARVC) is urging California campgrounds to write Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger encouraging him to sign the bill into law.
AB 1824 has made its way almost unanimously through both Houses and their respective committees with only three nay votes and one abstention, CalARVC reported. The law is meant to protect campground owners and millions of campers from the assumed negative effects from products that contain bronopol, dowicil, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, paraformadelhyde and paradichlorobenzene.
Background
Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thetford Corp., a manufacturer of holding tank chemicals for both the marine and RV markets, Dometic Corp., Elkhart, Ind., a Thetford competitor, and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) opposed the bill – essentially urging the state of California to back up their reasons with science that proves these chemicals are fouling up septic systems.
Thetford contends that use patterns – the fact that many people often dump holding tanks in a short period of time – is a more serious root cause of septic system problems.
“We do not feel that we have been shown any science that shows that the six chemicals that are being banned are going to address the problem,” said Diane Farrell, RVIA vice president of government affairs. “It seems like a remedy and yet we have not seen the right data pointing us to the problem at hand. California is a leader in the green movement, and one of the premises of that is to get chemicals into the hands of the scientists and this seems to be avoiding that process.”
CalARVC was unswayed by Thetford and RVIA’s opposition, and Dometic’s request to pull bronopol from the bill.
“Dometic has put a letter in opposition suggesting that bronopol be pulled from the bill and that is when we had to dig deeper into the science,” explained Debbie Sipe, executive director for CalARVC.
According to Sipe, the California Department of Toxics and Substance Control has looked into this question, but is coming up with inconclusive results.
“Fundamentally all chemicals, even green chemicals, have a risk associated with them,” explained Ed McKiernan, Dometic director of development for product sanitation at Dometic’s plant in Big Prairie, Ohio. “When you ban chemicals and just say ‘this is banned,’ you don’t know what all the consequences could be. In the case of this law, one of my biggest fears is that it is going to cause more difficulty and more harm to campground septic systems than if the law didn’t happen.”
In fact, McKiernan claims banning these chemicals, which come from a list assembled 10 years ago by Katherine Farrell-Poe, PhD, of the University of Arizona, will have virtually no positive effect on the environment.
“The level of bronopol that is used in a 40-gallon tank will virtually have no impact on a septic system based on studies that have been done at sewage treatment plants,” McKiernan explained. “At the time the list was put together it was thought that bronopol was another name for formaldehyde, and it’s not. There has been a lot of research done and it is clearly a different product. Bronopol is a good chemical because it is cost-effective, does a good job of odor control at high temperatures and has very minimal environmental impact.”
McKiernan said RV owners can – and often do – use alternative products that contain ammonium compounds, calcium nitrates or enzymes/bacteriological kinds of additives.
“The difficulty with those three alternatives is there are issues with biodegradability and odor control,” he said. “Nitrates are not removed when they go to the septic tank. They go into the leach field. You are going to be adding more nitrates and causing a bigger problem for the environment.”
Some of the greener products generally don’t work at high temperatures, according to McKiernan, and in the state of California where high temperatures are the norm, he maintained, fighting bad odors could become a way of life for the RV enthusiast.
When you take away products containing bronopol, McKiernan maintained, RV owners will likely start using homemade concoctions containing things like Drano or bleach, which kill all the bacteria in a septic system. “This will have a very negative environmental effect,” he said.
“We want to do the right thing environmentally, but we want to do the right thing by giving the RV owner products that work in high temperatures,” McKiernan added.
McKiernan would like to see California do an in-depth study on bronopol to gain a clearer understanding before passing the bill as it stands.
Chem-Free Holding Tank Bill Goes to Gov
Email Print August 6, 2010 by Leanne Phillips 1 Comment
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my Daily RV Industry News Feed. Thanks for visiting,
Sherman Goldenberg
The California Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds (CalARVC) is urging California campgrounds to write Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger encouraging him to sign the bill into law.
AB 1824 has made its way almost unanimously through both Houses and their respective committees with only three nay votes and one abstention, CalARVC reported. The law is meant to protect campground owners and millions of campers from the assumed negative effects from products that contain bronopol, dowicil, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, paraformadelhyde and paradichlorobenzene.
Background
Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thetford Corp., a manufacturer of holding tank chemicals for both the marine and RV markets, Dometic Corp., Elkhart, Ind., a Thetford competitor, and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) opposed the bill – essentially urging the state of California to back up their reasons with science that proves these chemicals are fouling up septic systems.
Thetford contends that use patterns – the fact that many people often dump holding tanks in a short period of time – is a more serious root cause of septic system problems.
“We do not feel that we have been shown any science that shows that the six chemicals that are being banned are going to address the problem,” said Diane Farrell, RVIA vice president of government affairs. “It seems like a remedy and yet we have not seen the right data pointing us to the problem at hand. California is a leader in the green movement, and one of the premises of that is to get chemicals into the hands of the scientists and this seems to be avoiding that process.”
CalARVC was unswayed by Thetford and RVIA’s opposition, and Dometic’s request to pull bronopol from the bill.
“Dometic has put a letter in opposition suggesting that bronopol be pulled from the bill and that is when we had to dig deeper into the science,” explained Debbie Sipe, executive director for CalARVC.
According to Sipe, the California Department of Toxics and Substance Control has looked into this question, but is coming up with inconclusive results.
“Fundamentally all chemicals, even green chemicals, have a risk associated with them,” explained Ed McKiernan, Dometic director of development for product sanitation at Dometic’s plant in Big Prairie, Ohio. “When you ban chemicals and just say ‘this is banned,’ you don’t know what all the consequences could be. In the case of this law, one of my biggest fears is that it is going to cause more difficulty and more harm to campground septic systems than if the law didn’t happen.”
In fact, McKiernan claims banning these chemicals, which come from a list assembled 10 years ago by Katherine Farrell-Poe, PhD, of the University of Arizona, will have virtually no positive effect on the environment.
“The level of bronopol that is used in a 40-gallon tank will virtually have no impact on a septic system based on studies that have been done at sewage treatment plants,” McKiernan explained. “At the time the list was put together it was thought that bronopol was another name for formaldehyde, and it’s not. There has been a lot of research done and it is clearly a different product. Bronopol is a good chemical because it is cost-effective, does a good job of odor control at high temperatures and has very minimal environmental impact.”
McKiernan said RV owners can – and often do – use alternative products that contain ammonium compounds, calcium nitrates or enzymes/bacteriological kinds of additives.
“The difficulty with those three alternatives is there are issues with biodegradability and odor control,” he said. “Nitrates are not removed when they go to the septic tank. They go into the leach field. You are going to be adding more nitrates and causing a bigger problem for the environment.”
Some of the greener products generally don’t work at high temperatures, according to McKiernan, and in the state of California where high temperatures are the norm, he maintained, fighting bad odors could become a way of life for the RV enthusiast.
When you take away products containing bronopol, McKiernan maintained, RV owners will likely start using homemade concoctions containing things like Drano or bleach, which kill all the bacteria in a septic system. “This will have a very negative environmental effect,” he said.
“We want to do the right thing environmentally, but we want to do the right thing by giving the RV owner products that work in high temperatures,” McKiernan added.
McKiernan would like to see California do an in-depth study on bronopol to gain a clearer understanding before passing the bill as it stands.
- Status