Formation of chlorine dioxide under laundry bleaching conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorite ion is a by-product of chlorine dioxide and is typically present at concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/L in the finished water of systems using this oxidant in the treatment process. When combined with free chlorine, these two reactive ions have been shown to react to form chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide concentrations formed in tap water (either in the distribution system or during domestic use of tap water, such as laundry bleaching) can off-gas in a home and react with volatile organic compounds associated with new carpets and furniture fabrics, resulting in cat-urine type odors and customer complaints. The objective of this study was to determine if chlorine dioxide is formed when the high concentrations of hypochlorite ion that are used in laundry bleaching operations are contacted with residual chlorite ion that is present in tap water of systems using chlorine dioxide at the treatment plant. If chlorine dioxide is forming under these circumstances, it could be a cause of seemingly random odor complaints periodically received by water utilities using chlorine dioxide. The formation of chlorine dioxide was found to be negligible under simulated laundry bleaching conditions. The key factor in chlorine dioxide formation was found to be pH. When chlorine is added as a base (e.g., sodium hypochlorite), the resulting pH is high enough to suppress chlorine dioxide formation.Key words: chlorine dioxide, chlorite ion, hypochlorite ion, re-formation, odors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".