Disinfection byproducts and cellular toxicity from UV/chlorine advanced oxidation for potable reuse and drinking water treatment compared to chlorination and UV/hydrogen peroxide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explored treatment byproducts and cellular toxicity resulting from UV/chlorine advanced oxidation for potable water reuse and drinking water treatment, in comparison to chlorine and UV/hydrogen peroxide as treatments widely considered acceptable to use. Waters from six full or large demonstration-scale potable water reuse or drinking water treatment plants were treated with lab and pilot-scale UV/chlorine, chlorine alone, and UV/hydrogen peroxide and analyzed for 43 known disinfection byproducts and four types of cellular toxicity. The byproducts and toxicity were almost always near or below detection limits for waters treated with reverse osmosis. For the other waters, UV/chlorine generally led to small (< 10 μg/L or < 40 %) increases in the byproduct concentrations over chlorine alone, though cellular toxicity following the two treatments was similar. While UV/chlorine formed more byproducts than UV/hydrogen peroxide within the UV reactor, there was little difference in the byproducts and cellular toxicity between the waters treated by either AOP plus secondary chlorination. One UV/chlorine byproduct of potential concern observed in this work was chlorate, as up to 15 % of the chlorine photolyzed during UV/chlorine converted to chlorate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".