By Marcelle Dibrell
It began as a chemistry debate, but it may end as a regulatory reckoning — United Chemical’s bromate study has wrapped, and the Environmental Protection Agency is watching.
United Chemical, a longtime provider of specialty pool chemicals, is poised to publish the findings of its recent field investigation into a key question: Does using sodium bromide in outdoor swimming pools actually produce bromate — the suspected carcinogenic byproduct at the heart of new EPA restrictions?
The study was initiated in response to new EPA labeling requirements, which now prohibit sodium bromide products from being marketed for outdoor pool use.
The EPA’s action stems from a potential pathway: sodium bromide converting to bromate when exposed to ultraviolet light and oxidizers such as chlorine.
Bromate is classified as a “probable human carcinogen” in regulated water contexts.
In its interim registration review decision, the EPA cited insufficient real-world data on whether outdoor pool use of sodium bromide actually
https://www.unitedchemical.com/pool-business/is-sodium-bromide-banned/
Click the image above to read the full article and special report as written by United Chemical. You can also sign up to receive all related EPA documentation sent straight to your inbox, as well as get updates as things progress. causes bromate formation — prompting the “not for outdoor pools” label language. United Chemical disputes the idea that the risk is elevated under typical outdoor conditions, arguing the EPA’s stance is based on laboratory assumptions rather than field evidence.
Scott Hamilton, CEO of United Chemical, says the company invested heavily in real-world testing to get to the bottom of the issue.
“My father introduced sodium bromide to the industry through Yellow Treat in the early 1980s,” Hamilton said. “Dad was a scientist, so I'd like to believe he'd do something like this and get to the facts. And once he got those facts, he would share them with the industry. We felt it was our responsibility to invest in performing the study.”
The study ran for roughly three months and, according to Hamilton, cost about $50,000 to complete.
“Each test cycle costs between $7,200 and $12,000 for third-party lab analysis,” he said.
“Pool equipment was around $20,000, onsite testing equipment about $1,000, and maybe another $1,000 for chemical costs.”
Testing was performed at United Chemical’s facility using a design Hamilton developed with input from the company’s regulatory team. Bromate measurements were conducted by Eurofins Labs using ion chromatography.
Hamilton emphasized the company ’s commi tment to transparency: “While most people know us through our algicides like Yellow Treat
and No Mor Problems
, we consider ourselves a science company first. That’s why we will publish all the raw data we collect to the industry. It’s important that this study is as transparent and rigorous as possible. It’s our scientific and ethical duty.”
The company has shared its testing protocol with the EPA, though Hamilton says they have yet to receive a response. “We submitted the protocol over a year ago,” he explained.
“It’s likely due to a combination of understaffing and, more recently, the government shutdown. We decided to move ahead anyway so we could gather data for ourselves and for the industry.”
United Chemical is now consulting with outside chemists to doublecheck the study’s interpretations before publishing the results. Hamilton hopes that once submitted, the findings will help the EPA revisit its assumptions.
“The decision for the label change was made based on an assumption of 100-percent conversion,” he said. “I don’t know at what conversion rate the EPA will draw the line, but we followed their study protocols as closely as possible. Once submitted, their scientists will review it, and that often involves a back-and-forth with their panels. It’s a long process.”
For United Chemical, the sodium bromide label change has had commercial repercussions.
“Since the labeling change, PoolCorp has stopped carrying sodium bromide-based algicides — including ours — and has tried converting customers to ammonium sulfate-based products,” Hamilton said.
“Thankfully, Heritage Pool Supply, Gorman, Baystate, and others in our distribution network have stood by us. We’ve had to combat a lot of misinformation — including claims that we stopped making the products or that they’re illegal to purchase — and let customers know the products are still legally available.”
He says pool service professionals remain vocal about the product’s effectiveness. “They’ve said the same thing — it’s the only stuff that works,” Hamilton added.
Although the study has now been completed, the final dataset and interpretive report have not yet been released; United Chemical says the results will be available soon. For pool service professionals, the coming release may help clarify whether the outdoor-use restriction for sodium bromide truly reflects real-world risk or remains a theoretical precaution.
Look forward to updates on this important topic in upcoming editions of Service Industry News: United Chemical is about to reveal what really happens when sodium bromide meets sunlight and chlorine.
For more information, contact Scott Hamilton at (805) 521-1011 or email s.hamilton@unitedchemical. com.
mailto:s.hamilton%40unitedchemical.com?subject=
mailto:s.hamilton%40unitedchemical.com?subject=
