Evaluating if airborne chemical levels in indoor swimming pools are influenced by type of water treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Airborne chemical contaminants within an indoor space have the potential to cause adverse effects on those who work or visit the building. Indoor pools are no exception and airborne contaminants arise when chemicals, used for disinfection purposes, react with the pool water. Pool water can be treated by different means (e.g., chlorination or ultra-violet (UV) radiation) and whether the type of water treatment affects the airborne chemical levels is unclear. This study examined UV-treated vs. chlorine-treated swimming pools to determine if there is a difference in the resulting airborne chemical concentration of chlorine, hydrochloric acid (HCl) and trichloramines. Methods Two swimming pools (one UV-treated and one chlorine-treated) were selected to participate based upon the inclusion criteria. Partial period sampling was conducted on 3 different days at each facility when swim classes were occurring. For each sampling period, two ambient samples for each analyte (chlorine, HCl, and trichloramines) were collected according to recognized occupational hygiene protocols. Additionally, the temperature and relative humidity were measured, and other pool chemistry information was obtained. Comparative analyses were performed to ascertain if there was a difference in airborne chemical levels between the two pools. Results Summary statistics indicated very similar averages for each of the three airborne chemicals between the two water treatment types. A two-sample t-test found that the difference in means was not statistically significant for any of the three analytes. Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference reported in the mean airborne concentration for any of the analytes between the chlorine-treated swimming pool and the UV-treated swimming pool. In addition, all airborne chemical concentration levels were below their respective occupational exposure limit or recommended guideline level. The type of water treatment does not appear to impact the airborne chemical levels though further research is suggested to confirm these results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".