This document summarizes a pilot study conducted by Sheridan College students on the effectiveness of a liquid pool cover called HeatSavr at the YMCA Brampton facility. Data was collected over 4 weeks with and without the cover to analyze impacts on room temperature, humidity, and energy consumption. Key findings included an average 2.5% reduction in relative humidity and 45.5% decrease in natural gas consumption when using HeatSavr. Based on these results, the report recommends considering implementing liquid pool covers in other YMCA facilities to realize energy savings and humidity reductions.

1. YMCA Brampton Pilot Study Report: Effectiveness of Liquid Pool Covers
Sheridan College, Applied Research Project, Agnes Klimowski and Alstor Fernandes
August 2014

2. i
DISCLAIMER
The work described in this report was compiled for academic credit by two students (Agnes Klimowski and
Alstor Fernandes) in the Environmental Control Post-Graduate certificate program, while working under the
direction of Dave Clark CET and Amandeep Bharaj of the Centre for Advanced Manufacturing and Design
Technologies (CAMDT) at Sheridan College. This engagement occurred during their one day per week
Industry Placement. The objective of this report is to identify, evaluate, and interpret the qualitative and
quantitative benefits of adding a liquid pool cover to the Brampton YMCA’s pool operations.
The content of this report is based upon the observations and measurements made while visiting the above
facility. We have tried to offer specific and quantitative recommendations of cost savings related to
energy/water efficiency, pollution prevention, and productivity improvements to the facilities we serve. We
do not attempt to prepare engineering designs, or otherwise perform services that you would expect from an
engineering firm, vendor, or a manufacturer's representative. Should the need for that kind of assistance
arise, we urge you (with CAMDT’s assistance, if desired) to consult them directly.
The opportunities presented in this report identify economic benefits for each of the areas mentioned above.
Other recommendations that may not provide economic incentives are also presented; consideration of
these recommendations is strongly encouraged. Note that the interrelationships between energy, wastes,
and production are also explored and presented. Other possible benefits, such as improved workplace
conditions, reduced liability exposure, improved public image, and reduced environmental impact should also
be considered.
The assumptions and equations used to calculate the savings for each recommendation are given in the
report, with assumptions being representative of conservative engineering practice.
The Ontario Power Authority, Enbridge Gas Distribution, Sheridan College, CAMDT, and all technical sources
referenced in this report do not (a) make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect
to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of
any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report may not infringe on privately owned
rights; (b) assume any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any
information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report. This report does not reflect official views
or policies of the previously mentioned institutions. Please feel free to contact the following at CAMDT if
there are any questions or comments related to this report.
Dave Clark, CET
Project Officer - Sustainability
Sheridan College
Faculty of Applied Science and Technology
7899 McLaughlin Road, Brampton, ON L6Y 5H9
T: (905) 459-7533 x5064
E: dave.clark1@sheridancollege.ca
For more information on the CAMDT Applied Research Initiative, please visit the CAMDT website at
www.sheridancollege.ca/About Sheridan/Sheridan Research/Centres/CAMDT.aspx, or call 905-845-9430 ext.
4261

3. ii
Acknowledgment
We are very grateful for the opportunity to work alongside Sheridan College and the YMCA for this
project. Huge thanks to Dave Clark, Amandeep Bharaj, Chris Beaver, and Jonalyn Sagisi for all of their
guidance and support during this project.
We would also like to thank Oksana Varkhola, Han Nguyen, and Aqeel Zaidi from Enbridge Gas for
providing us with the flow measuring device which provided us with input and output temperature data
of the pool allowing us to measure the temperature difference before and after the utilization of liquid
pool cover. We are very thankful to Han Nguyen for taking the time to visit the YMCA facility and install
the device.
As well, Mike Bechard of Peel Region provided us with great guidance on how to capture water
efficiency via use of installed water meters throughout the YMCA Brampton Facility.
Finally, sincere thanks are directed to Grant Moonie of Flexible Solutions Ltd. for providing us with the
HeatSavr liquid pool cover and dispensing pump, at no cost, for the duration of our study.

4. iii
Background
The Centre for Advanced Manufacturing and Design Technologies (CAMDT) at Sheridan College
partnered with the YMCA of the Greater Toronto Area to assess the effectiveness of using liquid pool
covers to try to investigate options make their pool systems more energy efficient based on the
effectiveness of liquid pool covers demonstrated in several case studies. Specifically, pool water
temperature retention, natural gas consumption, and percent relative humidity (%RH) was investigated.
A pilot study was conducted at the YMCA’s Brampton facility over the course of 4 weeks, during which
data was collected with and without HeatSavr. These results were analyzed and used to determine
whether HeatSavr would be worth implementing in other facilities

5. iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment.......................................................................................................................................... ii
Background .................................................................................................................................................. iii
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Pool Specification................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Effects of Indoor Air Quality on Comfort............................................................................................3
2.3 Liquid Pool Cover Description.............................................................................................................3
2.4 Case Studies ........................................................................................................................................4
2.4.i Heat Retention..............................................................................................................................4
2.4.ii Water Usage.................................................................................................................................5
2.4.iii Energy Usage...............................................................................................................................5
3.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Building Age ........................................................................................................................................6
3.2 Location...............................................................................................................................................6
3.3 Gross Square Footage.........................................................................................................................6
3.4 Lease or Own.......................................................................................................................................6
3.5 Number of Floors................................................................................................................................6
3.5 Facility Usage ......................................................................................................................................6
3.6 Operating Hours..................................................................................................................................6
3.7 Types of Loads.....................................................................................................................................6
3.8 Glazing Type........................................................................................................................................6
3.9 Envelope Type.....................................................................................................................................6
4.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Testing Period .....................................................................................................................................7
4.2 Variables Tested..................................................................................................................................7
4.3 Equipment Involved............................................................................................................................7
4.4 Baseline Test Period Procedure..........................................................................................................7
4.4.i Data Collection..............................................................................................................................7
4.5 Liquid Pool Cover Test Period Procedure ...........................................................................................8
4.5.i HeatSavr Dosing............................................................................................................................8
4.5.ii Data Collection.............................................................................................................................8

6. v
5.0 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................................9
5.1 Baseline Testing ..................................................................................................................................9
5.1.i Room Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity ...............................................................9
5.1.ii Water Temperature .....................................................................................................................9
5.1.iii Energy Consumption...................................................................................................................9
5.2 Liquid Pool Cover Testing....................................................................................................................9
5.2.i Room Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity .............................................................10
5.2.ii Water Temperature ...................................................................................................................10
5.2.iii Energy Consumption.................................................................................................................10
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................10
7.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................12
8.0 APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................13

7. vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pool natural gas consumption – average m3
per day: 4 year average compared to 2009............5
Figure 2. Satellite Image of 20 Union Street, Brampton, ON........................................................................6
Figure 3. Humidex comfort matrix based on temperature and relative humidity (Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety, 2013).............................................................................................................................13
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of results of YMCA Brampton liquid pool cover study....................................................1
Table 2. YMCA Brampton main pool specifications......................................................................................2
Table 3. YMCA Brampton pool bather load..................................................................................................3
Table 4. Physical characteristics of HeatSavr (Flexible Solutions Ltd., 2012). ..............................................4
Table 5. Summary of water temperature retention data.............................................................................4
Table 6. Pool natural gas consumption – average m3
per day: 4 year average compared to 2009. ............5
Table 7. Satellite Image of 20 Union Street, Brampton, ON.........................................................................6
Table 8. Summary data for baseline test period...........................................................................................9
Table 9. Comparison of averages between Baseline and HeatSavr Tests. .................................................10
Table 10. Comparison of natural gas consumption and savings. ...............................................................11
Table 11. Humidex comfort matrix based on temperature and relative humidity (Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety, 2013).............................................................................................................................13

8. 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The pilot study was undertaken by the Centre for Advanced Manufacturing and Design Technologies
(CAMDT) at Sheridan College for YMCA Brampton facility in association with Enbridge Distribution Inc.,
Peel Region, and Flexible Solutions Ltd. The motive for the pilot study was to verify the effectiveness of
using a liquid pool cover to reduce humidex levels, decrease water consumption, and lower the current
energy consumption of the YMCA facility, which previous case studies have shown positive results for.
The implementation of the liquid pool cover in other YMCA in the Greater Toronto Area facilities will be
considered based on the success of the pilot study. The highlights of the findings from this pilot study
are provided below.
Table 1. Summary of results of YMCA Brampton liquid pool cover study.
Test
Period
Δ Temperature
(°C)
Average
%RH
Reduction in
%RH
Natural Gas Consumption
($/m3)
Monthly Gas
Consumption
Natural Gas
Savings
Baseline 0.315 82.37
2.50%
172.96 $432.41
45.53%
HeatSavr 0.136 80.26 65.62 $196.86

9. 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
YMCA Corporation has been an ideal corporate citizen and has been trying to enhance their sustainable
efforts by lowering their energy consumption via installation of energy efficient systems such as lighting,
HVAC systems, etc. Recently, the pool systems have been identified as a potential source for energy
savings. As well, humidity levels in the pool area are an additional area of concern that can potentially
be mitigated using the liquid pool cover.
The Centre for Advanced Manufacturing and Design Technologies (CAMDT) at Sheridan College
partnered with YMCA to investigate different options to make the pool systems more efficient and
decided to test the effectiveness of liquid pool covers. There have been numerous case studies showing
that liquid pool covers are a viable option to reduce the energy consumption due to their ability to
retain heat and reduce evaporation, thereby aiding in humidity reduction as well. To ensure the case
studies and product claims are accurate, CAMDT carried out a pilot study at YMCA Brampton location.
Based on the pilot study findings, the use of liquid pool covers at other YMCA facilities will or will not be
recommended.
2.1 Pool Specification
The table below summarizes the key specification of the pool being used in this study:
Table 2. YMCA Brampton main pool specifications.
Pool Size: ~4300 sq. ft.
Pool Schedule: Mon- Fri 6:00 am -12am Sat-Sun 7am - 8 pm
Skimmer type: Circumference
Filtration System: Surge tank with DE Filter and close loop sand filters
Tracking Bather Load: Yes
Sensors installed: 2 HOBO U12 TEMP/RH/Light Sensors
Pool and Hot Tub temp data: Building Automation System (B.A.S.)
Outdoor temp and weather data: Environment Canada
Backwashing Schedule: 6000L weekly on Sunday mornings (Increased freq in summer
months starting in July)
Recommended HeatSavr Dosage: 16-18 oz/day (1.5oz dosed every 2 hours)
Testing period: Two weeks (~280 oz of HeatSavr will be used)
Pool Heating system flow diagram: Yes
Hot Water Heating Loop: Yes
Type of Heat Exchanger: 2 shell and tube, 1 for main pool and 1 for conversation pit
Variables currently monitored: Chlorine, pH, ORP (oxidation reduction potential), HX via valve and
B.A.S
Data Historian: Joshua Cherian (Facility Manager)
Water Temp maintained at: 27°C
Air Temp Maintained at: 29°C
Chlorine levels: 5-3 ppm
pH Levels: 7.5-7.7

10. 3
Table 3. YMCA Brampton pool bather load.
Pool Occupancy Usage Period Expected for July-Aug 2014
Mon - Fri: Morning 45 max
Afternoon 60-90 (kids program)
Sat: All day 150-170
Sun: All day ~100
2.2 Effects of Indoor Air Quality on Comfort
As per the guide for air quality by the Joint Health and Safety Committee, there are no specific legislated
standards for Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in Ontario. However, the Ontario Ministry of Labour uses carbon
dioxide as an indicator of sufficient outdoor air supply and has established a Workplace Exposure
Guideline (WEG) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in offices of 1000 ppm (parts per million). Ministry of Labour
Inspector may issue an order requiring the building owner to increase the amount of outdoor air being
supplied to the building occupants, if levels of CO2 exceed this value.
Excessive high temperatures, humidity, and lack of air movement can result in unacceptable IAQ. The
comfort zones are generally sited as 20°C to 24°C in the winter and 22°C to 26°C in the summer, with a
relative humidity between 30% and 60% in the winter and 30% and 80% in the summer. Low humidity
levels (below 30%) can cause discomfort such as drying of the nose, throat and eyes. High humidity
levels can result in condensation, leading to the growth of molds and fungi, as well as increase in
humidex.
Humidex is primarily affected by two variables, temperature and humidity. It describes how hot a
person feels. When humidex is too high, hazards such as heat rash, heat cramps, heat exhaustion or
stroke become an issue. Table 9 in Appendix shows the varying degrees of comfort based on the relative
humidity and temperature.
Lastly, air movement is also an important comfort factor. Low air movement may lead to complaints of
stuffiness while too much air movement causes complaints of draftiness.
2.3 Liquid Pool Cover Description
For this study a liquid pool cover, HeatSavr®, manufactured by Flexible Solutions International Ltd., was
used (Flexible Solutions® HeatSavr HS560, Taber, AB, Canada). HeatSavr is a biodegradable, non-toxic
transparent liquid composed of 80-90% isopropyl alcohol that has been shown to have no known effects
on pool water chemistry. Table 4 shows the physical data information for HeatSavr:

11. 4
Table 4. Physical characteristics of HeatSavr (Flexible Solutions Ltd., 2012).
Boiling Point (°C) 83
Melting Point (°C) -88
Specific Gravity (water = 1) 0.79
Vapour Pressure (mmHG / 20°C) 23
Vapour Density (air = 1) 2.07
Water Solubility (%) 100
Evaporation Rate (Butyl acetate = 1) 3
Appearance and Odour Clear, colourless liquid, medical alcoholic odour
HeatSavr forms a mono-molecular layer over the surface of water due to its hydrophilic tail, which
interacts with the surface of the water, and hydrophobic head, which sits above the water, as well as its
lower specific gravity, relative to water. This layer allows HeatSavr to:
 Retain the temperature of water
 Conserve water (i.e., decrease evaporation)
 Reduce energy usage
2.4 Case Studies
2.4. i Heat Retention
A study performed by the Professional Pool Operators of America (2011), investigated the amount of
heat loss prevented by using HeatSavr. The duration of the test was 10 days, during which the
temperature of water in a 480 ft2
pool was recorded on a daily basis. The temperature was recorded
under four different treatments: with no pool cover, with a hard cover manually pulled over the pool for
8 hours overnight, or with two different doses (once versus twice a day) of the liquid cover, HeatSavr.
Results showed that no cover at all resulted in a water temperature loss of 12 °F overnight. With the
hard cover only 4°F were lost. When one dose of the liquid cover was added (which is enough for 24
hours), only 6 °F were lost, and when the dose was doubled, the water only fell by 5 °F (Table 4.). This
test showed that HeatSavr retained approximately 50% of the water temperature and that the heat loss
was comparable between the liquid and hard cover, but the liquid cover had the advantage of the
convenience and ease of use. As well, the Birchmount indoor pool in the City of Toronto found that heat
loss was minimized by 17% due to decrease in evaporation (City of Toronto, n.d.).
Table 5. Summary of water temperature retention data.

12. 5
2.4. ii Water Usage
Several studies have shown the success of using HeatSavr to reduce the amount of water usage by
means such as reducing evaporation. Urban Life found a 50% reduction in water evaporation when
HeatSavr was applied to a body of water maintained at 28°C, which also significantly decreased the
humidity levels in the showroom. In their experiment, the amount of evaporation from a showroom hot
tub was measured with and without the addition of HeatSavr over 7 days for both tests. Salt River
Project (SRP) also demonstrated a 30-50% decrease in evaporation.
2.4. iii Energy Usage
Many facilities have investigated opportunities to lessen their energy costs. In 2008, the city of Thunder
Bay introduced HeatSavr into a pool where a 40% reduction in natural gas consumption was observed.
The figure below shows that the natural gas consumption for 2009 (with HeatSavr) was drastically less
than the 4 year average (without HeavSavr).
Table 6. Pool natural gas consumption – average m3 per day: 4 year average compared to 2009.
Another test successfully reduced operational costs during a cool summer by more than 30% by adding
HeatSavr once a day after the pool closed (Stevens Pointe Neighbourhood Association, 2010). Onslow
Fitness (2010) also managed to reduce their heating costs by more than 30% in their indoor pool.
Additionally, Onslow Fitness eliminated their humidity problems along with decreasing their chemical
usage by 80%.

13. 6
3.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
3.1 Building Age
The building was built in 1998
3.2 Location
The facility is located at 20 Union Street in Brampton,
Ontario.
(Lat: 43°41’18.84”N, Long: 79°45’32.64”W)
3.3 Gross Square Footage
61,360 square feet
3.4 Lease or Own
The building is owned
3.5 Number of Floors
Two floors
3.5 Facility Usage
The facility is used as a recreation centre, day care and for administrative purposes (offices)
3.6 Operating Hours
The operating hours are 5:45 A.M. - 11:00P.M. Monday to Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. on weekends
and 8:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M. on holidays. The daycare section of the building operates from 5:45 A.M. -
11:00 P.M. (Monday to Friday) and 7:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. (weekends/holidays).
3.7 Types of Loads
Plug loads, pool heating, HVAC and lighting
3.8 Glazing Type
Double-pane windows
3.9 Envelope Type
The exterior wall of the building is constructed of brick and glass. Some bricks on the exterior wall are
spalling due to excess moisture trapped behind the brick. Drop ceiling tiles are used in some sections of
the building, while some areas (like the gyms) have high steel roofs.
Table 7. Satellite Image of 20 Union Street,
Brampton, ON

14. 7
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Testing Period
The pilot study was conducted for a duration of 22 days, with a 12 day period of baseline testing
followed by a 10 day period of testing using the liquid pool cover. The variables tested in both periods
are outlined below.
4.2 Variables Tested
For the pilot study the following parameters were monitored:
 Humidity level in surrounding area of the pool
 Room air temperature of the surrounding area of the pool
 Temperature of water going into (supply) and exiting the pool (return)
 Flow rate of water
 Amount of water used to maintain the pool water levels
Following the baseline test period, the liquid pool cover was added to verify its effectiveness in reducing
humidex levels, decreasing water consumption, and lowering the current energy consumption of the
YMCA facility.
4.3 Equipment Involved
The following pieces of equipment were used to carry out the analysis:
 Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity Data Loggers (Onset® TidbiT® v2 Temp Data
Logger, Pocasset, MA, USA)
 Ultrasound water flow meter with water intake and exit temperatures sensors (provided by
Enbridge)
 HeatSavr Dispenser Pump (Flexible Solutions® HS115 Automatic Metering System, Taber, AB,
Canada)
 Bios weather humidex meters
 Water Temperature Data Loggers (Onset®TMCX-HD Air/Water/Soil Temperature Sensor,
Pocasset, MA, USA)
4.4 Baseline Test Period Procedure
For 12 days, the surrounding air temperature and percent relative humidity (%RH) in the main pool area,
water temperatures, flow rates, and water levels were monitored at specific intervals.
4.4. i Data Collection
4.4. i.i Room Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity
Both the air temperature and %RH in the main pool area were monitored on a daily basis using two data
loggers (one position at the north end of the pool and the other at the west end by glass windows). The
data loggers collected data every fifteen (15) minutes. After the 10 day test period, data was extracted
from the loggers and analyzed using Excel.

15. 8
4.4. i.ii Water Temperature
To determine the change in temperature, water was measured at the supply (water going to the pool)
and return (water going away from the pool) lines using two water temperature data loggers.
Temperature was collected every minute for 10 days, after which data was extracted from the loggers
and analyzed using Excel.
4.4. i.iii Water Consumption
Information about the volume of water being supplied to the pool and exiting the pool will be provided
by the YMCA facility to determine how much water is being conserved through the use of HeatSavr.
4.5 Liquid Pool Cover Test Period Procedure
4.5. i HeatSavr Dosing
Based on the size of the pool and high bather load and activity, the amount of HeatSavr dispensed into
the pool was ~532 mL per day (~44 mL every two hours) as recommended by Flexible Solutions Ltd.
4.5. ii Data Collection
4.5. ii.i Room Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity
Both the air temperature and %RH in the main pool area were monitored on a daily basis for 10 days
using the same two data loggers as in the baseline test period. The data loggers collected data every
fifteen (15) minutes. After the test period, data was extracted from the loggers and analyzed using Excel.
4.5. ii.ii Water Temperature
To determine the change in temperature, water was measured at the supply (water going to the pool)
and return (water going away from the pool) lines using two water temperature data loggers.
Temperature was collected every minute for 10 days, after which data was extracted from the loggers
and analyzed using Excel.
4.4. ii.iii Water Consumption
Information about the volume of water being supplied to the pool and exiting the pool will be provided
by the YMCA facility to determine how much water is being conserved through the use of HeatSavr.
4.4. ii.ivNatural Gas Consumption
To determine the amount of gas consumed during the baseline period, the difference in temperature
between the supply and return water data was multiplied by the pounds (lbs) of water flowing through
the pipe each minute (gal/min). This information was then used to calculate the total number of BTU’s
of natural gas needed to heat the water by that temperature difference, which was then converted into
cubic metres (m3
) of natural gas. By multiplying a cost of $0.18/m3
of natural gas, the total natural gas
consumption ($) was calculated for the specified testing period.

16. 9
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Baseline Testing
The following table summarizes the average results during the baseline test period without HeatSavr:
Table 8. Summary data for baseline test period.
Supply Water
Temperature
(°C)
Return
Water
Temperature
(°C)
Room
Temperature
9871699 (°C)
Room
Temperature
9871698 (°C)
Near Window
RH
9871699
(%)
RH
9871698
(%) Near
Window
Average 29.01 28.70 28.99 26.01 74.58 90.17
Min 23.59 22.71 27.26 25.04 63.66 78.92
Max 67.65 32.87 31.84 27.11 80.59 95.51
5.1. i Room Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity
From July 24, 2014 – August 5, 2014, the average room temperature was 28.99 °C by the north end of
the pool room and 26.01 °C by the west end, near the windows. This lower temperature is due to the
heat loss through the windows. The average humidity was 74.58% (north side) and 90.17% (west side).
5.1. ii Water Temperature
During the 12 day period, the average temperature of the supply water was 29.01° C while the return
was 28.70 °C.
5.1. iii Water Consumption
Unfortunately data was unable to be obtained in time for the write-up of this report. Future studies
should analyze how much water is consumed without the addition of a liquid pool cover.
5.1. iv Energy Consumption
Using Excel, the amount of natural gas consumption during the baseline period of 12 days was $172.96.
This value represents the cost of heating the water going into the main pool area. The warmer the
return water is, the less it needs to be heated before it is supplied back into the pool. Therefore,
$172.96 was needed during the 12 days to heat a certain amount of water, based on the temperature
difference between the supply and return water.
5.2 Liquid Pool Cover Testing
The following table summarizes the average results during the baseline test period with HeatSavr:

17. 10
Table 5.2 Summary data for HeatSavr test period.
Supply Water
Temperature
(°C)
Return Water
Temperature
(°C)
Room
Temperature
9871699 (°C)
Room
Temperature
9871698 (°C)
Near Window
RH
9871699
(%)
RH
9871698
(%) Near
Window
Average 27.88 27.79 28.74 25.77 72.72 87.79
Min 21.80 20.96 26.70 23.42 63.26 48.29
Max 63.69 28.84 30.90 29.94 78.97 95.23
5.2. i Room Air Temperature and Percent Relative Humidity
From August 5, 2014 – August 15, 2014, the average room temperature was 28.74 °C by the north end
of the pool room and 25.77 °C by the west end, near the windows. There was a higher average room
temperature recorded at the north end due to several sunny days that contributed to increase in air
temperature. The average humidity was 72.72% (north side) and 87.79% (west side).
5.2. ii Water Temperature
During the 10 day period, the average temperature of the supply water was 27.88° C while the return
was 27.79 °C.
5.2. iii Water Consumption
Unfortunately data was unable to be obtained in time for the write-up of this report. Future studies
should analyze how much water is consumed with the addition of a liquid pool cover.
5.2. iv Energy Consumption
In this study the amount of natural gas consumption was taken into account. Natural gas is used for this
pool specifically to heat the water to a comfortable temperature (~27o
C) for bathers. During the 10 day
HeatSavr period the amount of natural gas consumption was $65.62. Gas consumption was calculated
based on the current rate $0.18/m3
of natural gas provided by Enbridge Inc.
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main purpose of this pilot study was to confirm with other similar case studies using HeatSavr if
YMCA Brampton Facility was able to reduce humidity levels, increase comfort levels for bathers,
maintain water temperature and reduce natural gas consumption to heat up the main pool.
Table 9. Comparison of averages between Baseline and HeatSavr Tests.
Test
Periods
Avg. Supply
Temp (o
C)
Avg. Return
Temp (o
C)
Avg. Air Temp
1 (o
C)
Avg. Air Temp
2 (o
C)
Avg.
%RH 1
Avg. %
RH 2
Baseline
Test
29.01 28.70 26.01 28.99 90.17 74.58
HeatSavr
Test
27.88 27.79 25.77 28.74 87.79 72.72

18. 11
From Table 9, it is observed that the water temperature for supply and return while HeatSavr was in use
is a couple degrees below the baseline water temperatures. The average return temperature being very
similar to average supply temperature for HeatSavr means less natural gas being used to constantly
maintain water temperature to ~27o
C. In terms of the air temperature and %RH there is a slight
reduction in comparison with the baseline data which means more comfortable levels for bathers.
Table 10. Comparison of natural gas consumption and savings.
Test
Periods
Total Gas
Consumption (m3
)
Natural gas
consumption ($/m3
)
Monthly gas
consumption
Natural Gas
Savings
Baseline
Test 960.91 172.96 $432.41 45.53%
HeatSavr
Test 364.56 65.62 $196.86
In Table 10, shows the amount of natural gas consumed for Baseline and HeatSavr tests. It should be
noted that Baseline test ran for 12 days and HeatSavr ran for 10 days. Using the data collected from this
pilot project it was calculated that without HeatSavr, YMCA Brampton would be paying $432.41 of
natural gas use on a monthly basis. While using HeatSavr, YMCA Brampton would be paying
$196.86/month. This is a 45% savings in natural gas consumption. It is recommended that YMCA
Brampton continue using HeatSavr as it does provide more comfortable levels for bathers with the
reduction of humidity and air temperature as well as the significant savings in natural gas consumption.

19. 12
7.0 REFERENCES
Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers Inc. (2005). Indoor Air Quality: A Guide for Joint Health &
Safety Committees. Retrieved on July 23, 2014 from
http://www.ohcow.on.ca/uploads/sudburyclinic/pdf/Indoor%20Air%20Quality%20Workbook.pdf.
Flexible Solutions Ltd. (2012). Ecosavr [Material Safety Data Sheet]. Retrieved July 23, 2014 from
http://cloud2.snappages.com/86820d31baf91360b2ec3090e4b6dd03e0d0285b/EcosavrMSDS.pdf.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. (2013). Humidex Rating and Work. Retrieved on
July 23, 2014 from http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/humidex.html.
Professional Pool Operators of America. (2011). Liquid Pool Covers Save Energy. Retrieved on July 23,
2014 from
http://cloud.snappages.com/86820d31baf91360b2ec3090e4b6dd03e0d0285b/PPOA%20article_1.pdf.
Urban Lide. (n.d.). Humidity Reduction with HeatSavr. Retrieved on July 23, 2014 from
http://heatsavertenerife.com/pdf/UrbanLife.pdf.
Salt River Project (SRP). (2014). Reduce Evaporation From Your Pool. Retrieved on July 23, 2014 from
http://www.srpnet.com/energy/powerwise/savewithsrp/pooldrops.aspx.

20. 13
8.0 APPENDIX
Table 11. Humidex comfort matrix based on temperature and relative humidity (Centre for Occupational Health and Safety,
2013).