Antifreeze

[choppy]

Not having to have dealt with this for 7 or so years now have to winterize boat in UK and a whole choice of AF in Halfords - petrol retailers by and large dont seem to sell it -
This is for raw water yanmar 20 & 30's
Is any AF/coolant suitable ? I bought a silicate based concentrate
I also understand there is an eco friendly type as this will probably end up in the water (Not silicate i would think ?)
Anyone advise please ?
Thanks as always

 

[Moodysailor]

Please do not use any automotive anti-freeze in you raw water system, it is not good for the environment at all. Freezeban is what we used to use a& sell a few years back, but i'm sure there are equivalent non-toxic products.

 

[choppy]

Please do not use any automotive anti-freeze in you raw water system, it is not good for the environment at all. Freezeban is what we used to use a& sell a few years back, but i'm sure there are equivalent non-toxic products.

Ok Thanks Freezeban is what im after - aware things have moved on

 

[VicS]

Please do not use any automotive anti-freeze in you raw water system, it is not good for the environment at all. Freezeban is what we used to use a& sell a few years back, but i'm sure there are equivalent non-toxic products.

Ok Thanks Freezeban is what im after - aware things have moved on

There is little or no advantage in using a low toxicity (propylene glycol) antifreeze, such as Freezeban
The common ethylene glycol based antifreeze is highly toxic to mammals, eg cats, dogs and children but is not so highly toxic to aquatic life and propylene glycol is no less toxic in the marine environment

 

[neil_s]

Raw water cooled motor - just drain it!

 

[Moodysailor]

There is little or no advantage in using a low toxicity (propylene glycol) antifreeze, such as Freezeban
The common ethylene glycol based antifreeze is highly toxic to mammals, eg cats, dogs and children but is not so highly toxic to aquatic life and propylene glycol is no less toxic in the marine environment

It would probably be more helpful if you suggested something more suitable rather than the worse of two evils...

 

[Moodysailor]

Found one that seems at first glance to be better than the current crop, but like most of these things it's a bit more expensive: Antifreeze

 

[thinwater]

Please do not use any automotive anti-freeze in you raw water system, it is not good for the environment at all. Freezeban is what we used to use a& sell a few years back, but i'm sure there are equivalent non-toxic products.

Not true. Compare the marine toxicity of EG and PG and you will find they are the same. Biodegradability is the same. The only difference is toxicity to mammals, an even that is only if you drink a good bit, not a chronic effect on whales.

EG vs. PG

I believe Dexcool is one of the recomended engine coolants (not antifreeze--that is just for freeze protection). The corrosion inhibitors (primarily 2-ethyl hexanoic dicarboxilic acid) are also biodegradable.

 

[thinwater]

The usual AF agents...

• ethanol
• glcerine
• EG
• PG

... are all harmless to the marine environment as diluted. They all contain about the same COD and BOD. The rest is just advertising. The glycol types are recyclable, the glycerine and alcohol types are just waste.

 

[Moodysailor]

Not true. Compare the marine toxicity of EG and PG and you will find they are the same. Biodegradability is the same. The only difference is toxicity to mammals, an even that is only if you drink a good bit, not a chronic effect on whales.

EG vs. PG

I believe Dexcool is one of the recomended engine coolants (not antifreeze--that is just for freeze protection). The corrosion inhibitors (primarily 2-ethyl hexanoic dicarboxilic acid) are also biodegradable.

They are both still toxic, you are glossing over the part where I said "equivalent non-toxic products". They only have low marine toxicity on MSDS due to the dilution ratio, this doesn't make them in any way 'good' for the environment.

 

[Moodysailor]

The usual AF agents...

• ethanol
• glcerine
• EG
• PG

... are all harmless to the marine environment as diluted. They all contain about the same COD and BOD. The rest is just advertising. The glycol types are recyclable, the glycerine and alcohol types are just waste.

These are not harmless, they are refined chemical products and do not belong in the marine environment. Just because something isn't specifically listed as a marine pollutant doesn't mean it is OK to discharge - it may not have been tested, or is tested as OK due to a dilution ratio that makes it look better on the MSDS.

A bit like saying "it's not that fall that kills you - it's the landing". Technically correct is semantics.

 

[Streaker1421]

Starbrite (pink), I use this every year when winterising. Non toxic to the point it is also safe to use in drinking water systems.

 

[thinwater]

These are not harmless, they are refined chemical products and do not belong in the marine environment. Just because something isn't specifically listed as a marine pollutant doesn't mean it is OK to discharge - it may not have been tested, or is tested as OK due to a dilution ratio that makes it look better on the MSDS.

A bit like saying "it's not that fall that kills you - it's the landing". Technically correct is semantics.

Not to be insulting... but none of that is accurate. The only effect is COD / BOD, the same as any organic chemical, including ethanol.

A quick chemistry lesson. Glycols are double alcohol. Glycerine is a triple alcohol. Glucose is a hexyl alcohol. There is no complex synthetic structure at work. Like carbon monoxide, they just get confused in the metabolism if present at VERY high levels. Like monoxide, once low enough there is no chronic effect. Ethanol is toxic to humans if you drink too much. It is harmless in moderate amounts. Glycols are the same there are ZERO chronic effects, only acute toxicity above a certain threshold.

Glycols have been tested extensivly because of their use as runway deicers, both EU and US. You can google the government studies. They found no difference between them. Google it, it's all in the public record.

 

[Moodysailor]

Not to be insulting... but none of that is accurate. The only effect is COD / BOD, the same as any organic chemical, including ethanol.

A quick chemistry lesson. Glycols are double alcohol. Glycerine is a triple alcohol. Glucose is a hexyl alcohol. There is no complex synthetic structure at work. Like carbon monoxide, they just get confused in the metabolism if present at VERY high levels. Like monoxide, once low enough there is no chronic effect. Ethanol is toxic to humans if you drink too much. It is harmless in moderate amounts. Glycols are the same there are ZERO chronic effects, only acute toxicity above a certain threshold.

Glycols have been tested extensivly because of their use as runway deicers, both EU and US. You can google the government studies. They found no difference between them. Google it, it's all in the public record.

No offence taken - but I completely disagree with you because we come at this from different perspectives. You are viewing this from an 'acceptable casualty' perspective - because something has been found in government studies?? to be below a certain acceptable level. I come at this from the view that we should be striving for 'zero casualty' - i.e no environmental impact. Less bad is not the same as good...

Part of my job is in ballast water treatment systems for ships. Some of the technology in this area (that we don't deal with) uses chemicals that are "safe" according to the letter of the law. But these chemical are harmful in their own right, it is only that there have been limits set by the regulation - as long as the discharge levels are below these limits then the industry thinks all is great. So I have a healthy cynicism for government studies, they are rarely free from bias in my experience.

I don't claim to have a deep understanding of the chemistry, but what I do know is that just because something has no complex synthetic structure, does not make it safe or OK. Highly refined "natural" substances do not exist in nature, and therefore there is an impact to the ecosystem they are introduced into, the impact is not "only" COD/BOD as there is a wider impact over time. And there is also the impact of the various additives within these A/F mixtures.

There are (or ate least used to be) a lot of people who dump antifreeze into the land and water each year during winterisation. I know because years ago I was the manager of a marine engineering business and we would order thousands of litres of A/F each year before winter for servicing and layups. The whole lot was sold before spring, either through our workshop or over the counter. The vast majority was deposited into the ground or water - it was just the way things were done "back then". And my business was just one of the hundreds following this practice.

I accept that A/F (EG or PG) are not the worst of substances, but EG is inherently toxic so I take the view that this is not something that should be discharged overboard willingly. I have briefly read through a couple of the studies done on airport de-icing and found them to be full of confirmation bias, with terms such as "unlikely" and "estimation" being used. For me, it does not change my view.

Merry Christmas.

 

[wombat88]

I know nothing about chemistry but can someone tell me where VW G13 (pink) sits in all of this?

Having in sat in a plane or two during de-icing I notice that whatever they use is pink...

 

[Moodysailor]

I know nothing about chemistry but can someone tell me where VW G13 (pink) sits in all of this?

Having in sat in a plane or two during de-icing I notice that whatever they use is pink...

The pink stuff used by the airports is probably propylene glycol.

From a quick search:
The G13 has a purple/violet colour and has the same exceptional cooling and antifreeze performance as G12++. The main difference: it is manufactured using glycerin instead of glycol. Glycerin is much less harmful to the environment than glycol. One is a bi-product of biodiesel production, the other is produced from mineral oil.

It is estimated that the manufacturing of G13 produces 11 % lower CO2 emissions than antifreeze with glycol.

In terms of environmental impact, it doesn't seem to be much better or worse than EG or PG, I think their statement above is referring to the environmental cost of production: MSDS

 

[VicS]

I know nothing about chemistry but can someone tell me where VW G13 (pink) sits in all of this?

Having in sat in a plane or two during de-icing I notice that whatever they use is pink...

It is a long life ethylene glycol based antifreeze, with added glycerine,conforming to a Volkswagen specification..

Use it in your Lambourghini, Bentley, or other VW group car.

 

[thinwater]

No offence taken - but I completely disagree with you because we come at this from different perspectives. You are viewing this from an 'acceptable casualty' perspective - because something has been found in government studies?? to be below a certain acceptable level. I come at this from the view that we should be striving for 'zero casualty' - i.e no environmental impact. Less bad is not the same as good...

Part of my job is in ballast water treatment systems for ships. Some of the technology in this area (that we don't deal with) uses chemicals that are "safe" according to the letter of the law. But these chemical are harmful in their own right, it is only that there have been limits set by the regulation - as long as the discharge levels are below these limits then the industry thinks all is great. So I have a healthy cynicism for government studies, they are rarely free from bias in my experience.

I don't claim to have a deep understanding of the chemistry, but what I do know is that just because something has no complex synthetic structure, does not make it safe or OK. Highly refined "natural" substances do not exist in nature, and therefore there is an impact to the ecosystem they are introduced into, the impact is not "only" COD/BOD as there is a wider impact over time. And there is also the impact of the various additives within these A/F mixtures.

There are (or ate least used to be) a lot of people who dump antifreeze into the land and water each year during winterisation. I know because years ago I was the manager of a marine engineering business and we would order thousands of litres of A/F each year before winter for servicing and layups. The whole lot was sold before spring, either through our workshop or over the counter. The vast majority was deposited into the ground or water - it was just the way things were done "back then". And my business was just one of the hundreds following this practice.

I accept that A/F (EG or PG) are not the worst of substances, but EG is inherently toxic so I take the view that this is not something that should be discharged overboard willingly. I have briefly read through a couple of the studies done on airport de-icing and found them to be full of confirmation bias, with terms such as "unlikely" and "estimation" being used. For me, it does not change my view.

Merry Christmas.

You are making emotional arguments without no consideration for facts. You didn't read the studies.

For example, chocolate is healthy for people and toxic to dogs. EG is toxic to mammals and harmless to marine life. It's one of those types of toxicity, unlike the toxicity of lead, for example, which is non-threshold and universal.

That said, whenever possible, glycols should be recovered for recycling (btw, something that cannot be said of other antifreeze agents, including glycerine).

---

I'd be interested to hear which chemicals you used for bilge water treatments. Part of my engineering consulting practice is industrial wastewater treatment.

 

[Moodysailor]

You are making emotional arguments without no consideration for facts. You didn't read the studies.

For example, chocolate is healthy for people and toxic to dogs. EG is toxic to mammals and harmless to marine life. It's one of those types of toxicity, unlike the toxicity of lead, for example, which is non-threshold and universal.

That said, whenever possible, glycols should be recovered for recycling (btw, something that cannot be said of other antifreeze agents, including glycerine).

---

I'd be interested to hear which chemicals you used for bilge water treatments. Part of my engineering consulting practice is industrial wastewater treatment.

I haven't read all the studies but the two I did read were fairly loose in their bias and contradictions. Lots of reference to 'acceptable limits' and doses. It is largely semantics though, as EG is toxic - it has the MSDS to match. It is padded up as non-toxic due after dilution, but that doesn't change the fact about it. This is nothing new so I'm not sure why anyone would support the discharge of this chemical into the environment - especially when there are much better alternatives...

One of the areas I work in in ballast water treatment (Incidentally, I also work in bilge water treatment). We don't use chemicals in our ballast water treatment systems, our treatment method is filtration and UV. There are other treatment methods that require a variety of chemicals in use and neutralization, the issue with all of these are the disinfection by-products created. These are not regulated - yet - but can be incredibly harmful.

My work means that I occasionally have to read through large and complex pieces of legislation, and supporting studies. I have learned that the studies are often constructed to suit the narrative. The ones I referenced above are classic examples where the narrative was to find an acceptable use for the chemical. I could easily re-write these, using their own data to make an alternative finding.

 

[thinwater]

I haven't read all the studies but the two I did read were fairly loose in their bias and contradictions. Lots of reference to 'acceptable limits' and doses. It is largely semantics though, as EG is toxic - it has the MSDS to match. It is padded up as non-toxic due after dilution, but that doesn't change the fact about it. This is nothing new so I'm not sure why anyone would support the discharge of this chemical into the environment - especially when there are much better alternatives...

One of the areas I work in in ballast water treatment (Incidentally, I also work in bilge water treatment). We don't use chemicals in our ballast water treatment systems, our treatment method is filtration and UV. There are other treatment methods that require a variety of chemicals in use and neutralization, the issue with all of these are the disinfection by-products created. These are not regulated - yet - but can be incredibly harmful.

My work means that I occasionally have to read through large and complex pieces of legislation, and supporting studies. I have learned that the studies are often constructed to suit the narrative. The ones I referenced above are classic examples where the narrative was to find an acceptable use for the chemical. I could easily re-write these, using their own data to make an alternative finding.

I agree on chlorine residuals. Many of these are understood to be non-threshold. Totally different. Ships are allowed to chlorinate to disinfect at orders of magnitude higher TOC levels than on shore. I never thought the regs on that made solid sense.

Other than that, you are still hand waving. Data. I actually am interested, because I have looked for it.