MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318544927 · doi:10.2166/ws.2014.088

Evaluation of approaches for consumers to eliminate chlorine off-flavors from drinking water at point-of-use

2014· article· en· W2318544927 on OpenAlexafffund
Yichao Qian, Wéi Wang, Xing‐Fang Li, Steve E. Hrudey

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology Water Supply · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsChlorineChloramineChemistryWater treatmentHydrogen peroxideEnvironmental chemistryAscorbic acidOzoneEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlorine off-flavors of tap water have caused dissatisfaction and distrust from some consumers, placing pressure on operators concerning water disinfection. Evaluating practical approaches for eliminating chlorinous off-flavors by consumers at point-of-use while avoiding production of toxic byproducts is a practical concern. Three recognized dechlorination methods: ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, ascorbic acid (AA) and hydrogen peroxide (HP), were evaluated for chlorinated and chloraminated waters. AA is the most efficient for removing free chlorine and chloramine from water samples. Three new chlorine-containing compounds were detected and identified from the reaction between AA and chlorine. High doses of UV irradiation at 254 nm virtually eliminated chlorine. HP could effectively remove free chlorine but was not effective for chloramine elimination. AA shows promise as a practical household dechlorination agent. However, to assure consumers about drinking water safety, further investigation is needed to evaluate any potential toxicity concerns for reaction products in treated water.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & Technology Water SupplySame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207