Winterizing Raw Water Exhaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 3, 2004
418
Island Packet Island Packet 29 West River, MD
I have a 1983 Yanmar 3GMF. Always winterize the raw water side with the pink stuff from West Marine (propylene glycol). The temps have been between 30-55F in the mid Chesapeake lately so I went sailing twice this week. Its gonna turn cold again, down to the high teens at night, so I want to winterize once more. My local West Marine is out of the pink stuff and the local hardware store has a product from a company called Camico that contains "ethyl alcohol, glycol, denaturants, colorant and water". Is this stuff safe to run thru my engine on the raw water side?

Thanks,
Joe Mullee
 
Oct 14, 2005
2,191
1983 Hunter H34 North East, MD
Joe...

You can get "pink stuff" at any RV store or at "Wally-World" for about the same price as at WM.
 
Mar 26, 2011
3,967
Corsair F-24 MK I Deale, MD
Ethanol? Probably not, unless you are certain all of the rubber parts are rated for that. Urethane does poorly.

Just use the cheapest automotive AF you can find. There is a popular misconception that propylene glycol is safer for the environment and better for the equipment than ethylene glycol; unfortunately, neither of these statements is true.

http://sail-delmarva.blogspot.com/2012/12/eg-vs-pg-conventional-wisdom-that-is.html

I've sent this post to a number of state agencies, including some of the most protective (Washington State); all have agreed that the facts are correct. Others have responded that they merely copied their on-line information from other states!

Of course, you MUST us propylene glycol in potable water systems as EG is moderately poisonous to mammals (though not to fish). Additionally, you should also remove nylon strainer lids after, as the PG can ruin them.
 
Feb 12, 2013
97
C&C 35 MKIII k/c Rock Creek, Chesapeake
No you will poison the water. Go to RVS store or west marine store on mountain road has some of he pink stuff
 

Jimm

.
Jan 22, 2008
372
Hunter 33.5 Bodkin Creek - Bodkin YC
I have a 1983 Yanmar 3GMF. Always winterize the raw water side with the pink stuff from West Marine (propylene glycol). The temps have been between 30-55F in the mid Chesapeake lately so I went sailing twice this week. Its gonna turn cold again, down to the high teens at night, so I want to winterize once more. My local West Marine is out of the pink stuff and the local hardware store has a product from a company called Camico that contains "ethyl alcohol, glycol, denaturants, colorant and water". Is this stuff safe to run thru my engine on the raw water side?

Thanks,
Joe Mullee
Forecasts I've seen for Annapolis area are not that severe and trending upward now - if you have dock power, put a heater in the cabin set on low for the next week. I'm about ready to de-winterize - likely next weekend.:)
 
Mar 26, 2011
3,967
Corsair F-24 MK I Deale, MD
No you will poison the water. Go to RVS store or west marine store on mountain road has some of he pink stuff
Did you read the link? I can see no scholarly data that supports that position, including WHO and EPA studies that were one-to-one comparisons. I posted them.

EPA study re. PG and EG
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/airport/upload/2005_10_07_guide_airport_airport.pdf

From Risk World (European conference)
"Based upon the limited available data, no general distinction can be made between aquatic toxicities of ethylene and propylene glycol formulations."

EG and PG MSDS. No important differences in the eco tox section.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927239
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927167

-------

Yes, PG is correct for potable systems; the rest is the result of PG marketing and reflexive head-nodding from a PC public with no basis in fact.
 
Feb 6, 1998
11,760
Canadian Sailcraft 36T Casco Bay, ME
Did you read the link? I can see no scholarly data that supports that position, including WHO and EPA studies that were one-to-one comparisons. I posted them.

EPA study re. PG and EG
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/airport/upload/2005_10_07_guide_airport_airport.pdf

From Risk World (European conference)
"Based upon the limited available data, no general distinction can be made between aquatic toxicities of ethylene and propylene glycol formulations."

EG and PG MSDS. No important differences in the eco tox section.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927239
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927167
Thinwater has done an excellent job bringing this information to light. I used to use Prestone to winterize my engine then our yard "banned" its use even in-water. I then researched the subject and could find no data to support what or why they claimed it was banned for. I then then gave up and used PG.

PG can damage certain polymers used for gaskets, joker valves, strainers etc. etc. but EG does not have these issues. I am sure Thinwater will eventually be publishing these findings in Practical Sailor...

Being that he works in the chemical engineering field, specifically with antifreeze products, he has great access most of us don't have to the antifreeze data.. Just because some web site or state agency has deemed something unsafe does not mean they have even researched it or that their data is correct..

We have been conversing about this off line for many months and I applaud his work!!!
 
Feb 12, 2013
97
C&C 35 MKIII k/c Rock Creek, Chesapeake
Did you read the link? I can see no scholarly data that supports that position, including WHO and EPA studies that were one-to-one comparisons. I posted them.

EPA study re. PG and EG
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/airport/upload/2005_10_07_guide_airport_airport.pdf

From Risk World (European conference)
"Based upon the limited available data, no general distinction can be made between aquatic toxicities of ethylene and propylene glycol formulations."

EG and PG MSDS. No important differences in the eco tox section.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927239
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927167

-------

Yes, PG is correct for potable systems; the rest is the result of PG marketing and reflexive head-nodding from a PC public with no basis in fact.
Ok I am confused here then. I respect your credentials of course and the fact you do this for a living. I am not challenging your credibility, but looking for a more defined explaination from the two experts.

On the surface if you are an dummy like me and most others when we Google ethyelene glycol there are huge amounts of information about its potential toxicity which appears to be the byproducts that are produced when ingested. I understand that in normal diluted quantities found in nature that it probably doesnt present a problem. My understanding also is that the EG is a sweet substance which if an animal...say a dog, squirrel, racoon, bird got a hold of it they would continue to ingest it because of its attractive scent as well as tatse and that what made it dangerous. The PG is sour and doesnt have the same properties or by products when ingested.

So is this incorrect and all this huge amount of online info incorrect also? Or is it in the quantities or concentrations we use the EG is not a toxic entity, but in greater concentration or ingestion it still could be.

Help me sort this out here.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol
Ethylene glycol (IUPAC name: ethane-1,2-diol) is an organic compound widely used as an automotive antifreeze and a precursor to polymers. In its pure form, it is an odorless, colorless, syrupy, sweet-tasting liquid. Ethylene glycol is toxic, and ingestion can result in death.

Toxicity
Main article: ethylene glycol poisoning
Ethylene glycol is moderately toxic with an oral LDLO = 786 mg/kg for humans.[6] The major danger is due to its sweet taste. Because of that, children and animals are more inclined to consume large quantities of it than of other poisons. Upon ingestion, ethylene glycol is oxidized to glycolic acid which is, in turn, oxidized to oxalic acid, which is toxic. It and its toxic byproducts first affect the central nervous system, then the heart, and finally the kidneys. Ingestion of sufficient amounts can be fatal if untreated.[7]
According to the annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System in 2007, there were about 1000 total cases resulting in 16 deaths. The 2008 American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System annual report lists 7 deaths.(Toxicity, Ethylene Glycol)
Antifreeze products for automotive use containing propylene glycol in place of ethylene glycol are available, and are generally considered safer to use, as it possesses an unpleasant taste in contrast to the perceived "sweet" taste of toxic ethylene glycol-based coolants, and only produces lactic acid in an animal's body, as their muscles do when exercised.[8]

From the CDC
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=0
Ethylene glycol ingestion first affects the central nervous system (CNS). After a characteristic latent period, signs of inebriation may be followed by serious illness and even death, caused by toxic metabolites.
Propylene glycol, which is much less toxic than ethylene glycol, is metabolized to compounds that are normal constituents of the citric acid cycle.
No health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to ethylene glycol or propylene glycol at levels found in the environment
 
Mar 26, 2011
3,967
Corsair F-24 MK I Deale, MD
Ok I am confused here then. I respect your credentials of course and the fact you do this for a living. I am not challenging your credibility, but looking for a more defined explanation from the two experts.

On the surface if you are an dummy like me and most others when we Google ethyelene glycol there are huge amounts of information about its potential toxicity which appears to be the byproducts that are produced when ingested. I understand that in normal diluted quantities found in nature that it probably doesnt present a problem. My understanding also is that the EG is a sweet substance which if an animal...say a dog, squirrel, racoon, bird got a hold of it they would continue to ingest it because of its attractive scent as well as tatse and that what made it dangerous. The PG is sour and doesnt have the same properties or by products when ingested.

So is this incorrect and all this huge amount of online info incorrect also? Or is it in the quantities or concentrations we use the EG is not a toxic entity, but in greater concentration or ingestion it still could be.

Help me sort this out here.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol
Ethylene glycol (IUPAC name: ethane-1,2-diol) is an organic compound widely used as an automotive antifreeze and a precursor to polymers. In its pure form, it is an odorless, colorless, syrupy, sweet-tasting liquid. Ethylene glycol is toxic, and ingestion can result in death.

Toxicity
Main article: ethylene glycol poisoning
Ethylene glycol is moderately toxic with an oral LDLO = 786 mg/kg for humans.[6] The major danger is due to its sweet taste. Because of that, children and animals are more inclined to consume large quantities of it than of other poisons. Upon ingestion, ethylene glycol is oxidized to glycolic acid which is, in turn, oxidized to oxalic acid, which is toxic. It and its toxic byproducts first affect the central nervous system, then the heart, and finally the kidneys. Ingestion of sufficient amounts can be fatal if untreated.[7]
According to the annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System in 2007, there were about 1000 total cases resulting in 16 deaths. The 2008 American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System annual report lists 7 deaths.(Toxicity, Ethylene Glycol)
Antifreeze products for automotive use containing propylene glycol in place of ethylene glycol are available, and are generally considered safer to use, as it possesses an unpleasant taste in contrast to the perceived "sweet" taste of toxic ethylene glycol-based coolants, and only produces lactic acid in an animal's body, as their muscles do when exercised.[8]

From the CDC
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=0
Ethylene glycol ingestion first affects the central nervous system (CNS). After a characteristic latent period, signs of inebriation may be followed by serious illness and even death, caused by toxic metabolites.
Propylene glycol, which is much less toxic than ethylene glycol, is metabolized to compounds that are normal constituents of the citric acid cycle.
No health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to ethylene glycol or propylene glycol at levels found in the environment

You are absolutely correct in both parts; EG is poisonous to mammals (people and particularly cats), and yes, it is confusing.

Regarding taste, nearly all consumer engine coolant (EG) is required by state law to be blended with bitterant to make it too nasty to taste (new laws--1-4 years). The "sweet taste" assertion is out of date and many references have not been updated. And PG tastes about the same.

http://theanimalrescuesite.greaterg...erant-placed-in-antifreeze-to-protect-pets320

The difference is that mammals and marine organism have very different metabolic pathways in certain key areas. For example, we buy zinc pills and they are safe for people, but we add zinc to bottom paint to repel slime and boost barnacle protection. Zinc is deadly to all fish at sub-part-per-million doses.

The portion of the MSDS that is relevant to marine toxicity list the LC/LD (lethal concentration/lethal dose) 50 for various marine organisms. In the case of both EG and PG these values are 1-4%, values that are simply impossible to maintain when we release a fraction of a gallon into the water.

For comparison, ethanol (drinking alcohol) is considerably more toxic to fish than EG or PG (same data source):
Ecotoxicity: Ecotoxicity in water (LC50): 14000 mg/l 96 hours [Rainbow trout]. 11200 mg/l 24 hours [fingerling trout].

So be careful dumping that rum overboard!

-------

It is important to remember that EG is poisonous and that it is ONLY for the engine and black water system. We have it in cars, the same precautions apply; don't leave waste in an open container. The black water system presents no threat, as it is poop and is generally taken off the boat in a sealed system or pumped in open water while moving. Few people or animals drink poop (I'm not trying to be funny--this is a serious reason why winterizing the head with EG is safe). Engine systems are either drained on shore (and should be recycled) or pumped over when dewinterized. It is only potable systems where poor dewinterization presents a potential threat.
 

druid

.
Apr 22, 2009
837
Ontario 32 Pender Harbour
Isn't the Internet wonderful? Where you can find Positive Proof of BOTH sides of an argument ;)

druid
 
Mar 26, 2011
3,967
Corsair F-24 MK I Deale, MD
Isn't the Internet wonderful? Where you can find Positive Proof of BOTH sides of an argument ;)

druid

That is what I would call a logical falicy. We were discussing the difference in toxicity between EG and PG in a marine environment. Discussion of human toxicity, while interesting, is outside of the focus, in my opinion. Good dialog, in that it suggests one origin of popular misinformation, but strictly speaking, off the topic.

I have found no scholarly information suggesting there is appreciable difference in a marine environment. I would welcome it.
 

druid

.
Apr 22, 2009
837
Ontario 32 Pender Harbour
That is what I would call a logical falicy. We were discussing the difference in toxicity between EG and PG in a marine environment.
Actually, I believe you were discussing whether or not EG is "bad" for the environment and should therefore be avoided. And you will find MANY websites claiming that.

It's like the discussion on Global Warming - Sites will say "Global Warming Bad", other sites will pick some aspect of Global Warming and prove it to to be false. That doesn't seem to stop the proponents from continuing to say "Global Warming Bad".

My sister teaches English, including persuasive essays. As an exercise, she had her students write a persuasive essay on the hot topic of their choice. THEN she had them write one promoting the OPPOSITE viewpoint - at first they said it couldn't be done, but after some research they found there was just as much evidence for the contrary position. And that was BEFORE the Internet...

I'm just saying you can prove just about ANYTHING on the net - some sources more trustworthy than others, but just because it says so on the Internet doesn't make it so.

BTW - I'm not suggesting you're wrong, just pointing out that a link to a website doesn't necessarily make it right (especially since the two of you are going through "duelling weblinks
)

druid
 
Feb 12, 2013
97
C&C 35 MKIII k/c Rock Creek, Chesapeake
Actually, I believe you were discussing whether or not EG is "bad" for the environment and should therefore be avoided. And you will find MANY websites claiming that.

It's like the discussion on Global Warming - Sites will say "Global Warming Bad", other sites will pick some aspect of Global Warming and prove it to to be false. That doesn't seem to stop the proponents from continuing to say "Global Warming Bad".

My sister teaches English, including persuasive essays. As an exercise, she had her students write a persuasive essay on the hot topic of their choice. THEN she had them write one promoting the OPPOSITE viewpoint - at first they said it couldn't be done, but after some research they found there was just as much evidence for the contrary position. And that was BEFORE the Internet...

I'm just saying you can prove just about ANYTHING on the net - some sources more trustworthy than others, but just because it says so on the Internet doesn't make it so.

BTW - I'm not suggesting you're wrong, just pointing out that a link to a website doesn't necessarily make it right (especially since the two of you are going through "duelling weblinks
)

druid
I hope it didnt come across I was dueling or trying to disprove Thinwater. I was confused at the mixed information I had.

I think what he is saying makes sense now. EG is toxic, but in most uses in the marine environement it is so diluted that it doesnt present a risk.
 
Feb 6, 1998
11,760
Canadian Sailcraft 36T Casco Bay, ME
I hope it didnt come across I was dueling or trying to disprove Thinwater. I was confused at the mixed information I had.

I think what he is saying makes sense now. EG is toxic, but in most uses in the marine environement it is so diluted that it doesnt present a risk.
And it poses less risk to many items in your sanitation and raw water systems too. I suspect cars dump a lot more EG onto our streets and parking lots than boaters could ever do winterizing the number of boats we do.. Considering the number of radiators that get replaced each year due to leaks I suspect the real risks with EG probably lies with what's in our driveways not what's in our slips...;)
 
Mar 26, 2011
3,967
Corsair F-24 MK I Deale, MD
Dueling is for the off-topic forums: I really didn't mean to come off that way here. In the right context it can be fun, but not here.

In this particular case, the reason I pressed hard for specific facts is that I publish articles and I want to be completely certain of my facts. This particular narrow argument--that EG is equivalent to PG to the marine environment--requires complete certainty because it is counter to conventional wisdom. It is important to boaters, because PG is just plain rough on certain marine equipment, specifically neoprene pump parts, nylon strainers and white sanitation hose. I have run tests, have browsed industrial data and have personal experiences supporting that assertion. Though I certainly do not depend on forums and the web for accuracy without heavy filtration, I do respect the members of these forums to point out counter arguments and perhaps point towards new information. There is a lot of knowledge here; some topics I post on, others I sit back and learn.

And yes, all glycols should be recycled via collection tanks at your local marina. 15 years ago I built what may still be the nations largest antifreeze recycling unit, in Richmond, VA, and so I am naturally a big supporter of recycling. Yes, PG and EG can be mixed for recycling. Please keep all other wastes out.
 
Mar 26, 2011
3,967
Corsair F-24 MK I Deale, MD
... My sister teaches English, including persuasive essays. As an exercise, she had her students write a persuasive essay on the hot topic of their choice. THEN she had them write one promoting the OPPOSITE viewpoint - at first they said it couldn't be done, but after some research they found there was just as much evidence for the contrary position. And that was BEFORE the Internet...

druid
Off-topic warning!

This is when the matter of logical falicy becomes oh so important. Many hot topics--gun control for example--hinge on personal values more than facts. How much is a life worth? How much does fear cost? How much is freedom worth? I can't imagine a firm answer to these questions. Another topic might start "I believe the boiling point of water at standard conditions is 100C," in which case there is really no counter argument unless one broadens the question to include factors not in the original statement (contaminants, pressure, nucleation factors). Politicians blur the distinction.
 
Oct 17, 2011
2,809
Ericson 29 Southport..
Maybe it's just prudent to not pour it into the dogs dish.

I think the stuff tastes kinda funky myself. It's best with a chaser..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.