Contrasting the effectiveness of chloramines reduction in indoor swimming pools disinfected by ozone versus UV
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 Objectives: Chloramines are disinfection by-products that are produced between chlorine and contaminants in the pool. Exposures to chloramines at high levels or for extended durations have been found to cause mucous membrane irritations and respiratory distress in humans. To reduce chloramines production, secondary treatment in the form of UV and ozone are used in newer indoor swimming pools. This study aimed to examine whether there is a difference between UV and ozone treatment in their effectiveness in reducing chloramines in indoor pools. Killarney leisure pool and whirlpool, which utilized ozone treatment, as well as Hillcrest leisure pool and whirlpool, which utilized UV treatment, were studied. Methods: Hach Pocket Colorimeter 2 Analysis System which used a DPD method of analysis was used to determine concentrations of free chlorine and total chlorines. Concentrations of chloramines were calculated by subtracting the concentration of free chlorine from total chlorine. Thirty pool water samples for each type of pool system were analyzed on random days in the afternoons of January and February, 2015. A two sample t-test was used to compare the chloramines concentrations of the whirlpools; while a Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the chloramines concentrations of the leisure pools. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the mean chloramines concentration of the UV-treated whirlpool and that of the ozone-treated whirlpool (p = 0.00854). However, there was not a statistically significant difference between the mean chloramines concentration between the UV treated leisure pool and that of the ozone treated leisure pool (p = 0.882048). Conclusions: It was determined that UV was more effective than ozone in reducing chloramines concentrations in indoor public whirlpools. Therefore, in order to choose a treatment that leads to the greatest reduction of health hazard posed to pool patrons, UV is preferred. Whirlpools that intend to adopt secondary treatment may consider UV.
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 | 0.003 | 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".