Diamond Enthusiast

|
The problem isn't so much the purification at the source. Purification at the source, even of large amounts of water, could be feasibly done without chlorine. The problem is that the water then has to travel some distance and still have something in it that will kill anything that seeps in during its journey. Bromine is used in place of chlorine in some pools because it has less of an odor, but i don't know if it is ever used in drinking water supplies. I know that chloramines (a nitrogen with three other atoms (hydrogens and chlorines) bound to it... mono-, di- or trichloramine depending on the number of chlorines) are sometimes used. These are less toxic, which may actually make thme more effective at killing some germs. Chlorine reacts quickly with the outside of a bacteria, possible killing it but not reaching the insides. Chloromines aren't reactive enough for as much to be wasted on the outsides... they manage to get inside where they do more damage. This is the same reason that rubbing alcohol is only 70% instead of 100%. I'm sure there are other alternatives, but i don't know of them off the top of my head.
[This message was edited by methos5000 on 01-03-03 at 02:51 PM.]
|
| |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
|
| |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
You're welcome. I don't know how easy these will be to find or if they're even commercially available, but good luck in your search. I know it's not important, but the chemist in me had to correct it: sodium hypochlorite.
|
| |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
As often happens, there is now evidence that chloramines, which are used to treat about 1/3 of the US's water, may not be as byproduct-free as once thought. Between 2002 and the present, 5 related byproducts have been found, one of which (iodoacetic acid) is reportedly the most toxic disinfection byproduct ever tested. The upside is that the byproducts appear to be very rare, so chloramines may still be healthier. read more here
|
| |
|