Talk:Ozone

message: The Physical Properties contains the strange sentence "It also can not be exposed". Should this be edited/deleted as it makes no sense? Joeylawn (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical Properties - odd sentence

message: hey, I'm a school kid and i've just got a small question: Our chemistry teacher told us that when you photocopy, the disctinctive smell that results is actually the smell of ozone. is this true? 
Ssej owl 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a kid

message: hey, I'm a school kid and i've just got a small question: Our chemistry teacher told us that when you photocopy, the disctinctive smell that results is actually the smell of ozone. is this true? -- moved from comment page MaxEnt (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its true! (Source: ) Noahk11 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  smell from photocopiers 

message: :Update Got an email back from UW Chemistry Library, but I guess she was afraid to edit the wiki herself.
"Hi. This kind of information is actually some of the hardest to pin down. I have tried to look at the most inclusive type sources-for example, Gmelin, which is sort of the ultimate handbook for inorganic chemistry. The online version of it contains 28 references on color. The data comes from articles ranging from roughly 1907 at the earliest to 2001. These entries indicate blue as the color but run from pale blue through blackblue. It may have more do with state and other issues. Sax's Dangerous properties of industrial matls, 8th. ed. indicates that it is colorless (perhaps that pale blue) in gas but dark blue as a liquid. Smell is really hard to pin down without going into much more time than I have. The problem there is that ozone is used to remove smells so you have to sort through a lot of material to get to the right info. Sax again has some more specific info in this area-It says that in concentrations of 0.015ppm, ozone has a barely detectable odor. At 1 ppm it has a sulfur-like odor.
The Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data Volume 6 page 431-436 is probably the best resource on property info re ozone properties. The author, A. G. Streng points out that the name ozone comes from the Greek word ozein which means to smell. He also again indicates color varies in concentration and state.
So, for what it is worth, I'd vote for some sort of blue and a smell if it were up to me.  Susanne
Susanne J. Redalje, Head Chemistry Library University of Washington Box 351700 Seattle, WA 98195
206 543 2070 (voice)
curie@u.washington.edu"
EPA says it is Blue and has a smell
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/sc_fact.html
"Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. It is blue in color and has a strong odor."
EPA ALSO says it is colorless and odorless.
http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/air/pd-l/ozone.htm
"Ozone is an odorless, colorless gas composed of three atoms of oxygen. "
International Chemical Safety Card 0068 says it has an odor.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc00/icsc0068.htm
"Physical State; Appearance COLOURLESS OR BLUISH GAS, WITH CHARACTERISTIC ODOUR."
Lots and lots of places say that it is "colorless odorless". Includinging many educational and governmental agencies. Seriously, google "ozone odorless" and you will get +186,000 hits of which approximately 80% clearly state that Ozone (03) is colorless and oderless.
I'm quite familiar with people claiming to smell "ozone" resulting from electrical discharge, but even this wiki document states "...odor from a lightning strike is usually from electrons freed during the rapid chemical changes, not the ozone itself. link: http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/ozone.html ". Which is true?
It appears that O1 O2 and O3 are all blueish, and all odorless. And the "smell" around electical discharges is not from ozone itself, but a bi-product of the chemicle reaction that creates ozone. I have emailed the University of Washington Chemestry Library chemlib@u.washington.edu about this and hopefully they will take a few minutes to clarify this matter with links to authoritative documents on the matter (or maybe they won't, so forward this concern to other chemistry documentation specialists as you see fit). I'm just a network technician looking for some answers!
-Flasher702 01/25/06
:Liquid ozone is blue and solid ozone is nearly black, but I don't think you can detect the colour in the gas: this might be one part of the confusion. Physchim62 (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my edits have made this clearer. At nomal concentrations in the atmosphere ozone is colourless. Pure ozone is blue. The concentrations at which it can be smelt are close to those typically found at ground level.--NHSavage 10:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the silliest thing I've ever heard -- that Ozone doesn't have an odor, but ELECTRONS DO!  Anyone who has worked with Ozone is familiar with the odor.  If you shock treat a room with Ozone, you can still smell it over an hour later, certainly long after there are any free electrons anywhere! Fortunately Ozone DOES have an odor, as the odor is the most reliable way to avoid exposure to dangerous concentrations of it.  I'm dubius as to it having a color in the gaseous phase, but couldn't say for sure.  When people talk about it being blue, I generally assume what they're describing is the corona discharge that is generating the ozone..  68.81.105.126 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ozone has a distinct and strong odor. However, I don't know if "pungent" or "reminiscent of chlorine" quite covers it. Anyone who has been in a welding shop or a room with a lot of motors running knows the smell, which I'd describe as sharp, metallic, almost acrid, and electrical. (Similar but not quite the same as that of burning iron.) If it was compared to a taste, I'd say something similar to the taste of touching aluminum to a filling in your tooth. You can get a lot of ozone around flashtubes, but perhaps the easiest way to sample it is with a simple stun gun. Ozone is typically heavier than air, so if you place a stun gun into a cup, allow it to spark several times, a small concentration will be left in the cup, but more than enough to smell. The smell is not nitrous oxide or nitric oxide either (as sparks will produce those as well). The smell of ozone is overpowering so that all others are virtually undetectable. Zaereth (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: colorless and odorless?

message: how can ozone generated through electronics
:By passing a spark through oxygen. Physchim62 23:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation of ozone 

message: Someone I know has a strong belief that computers, or any given consumer electronic for that matter, produce a harmful amount of ozone. I have been unable to find any information supporting that belief, does anyone know of any references to how much ozone a home PC produces? I know that it possibly can create it becuase of electromagnetic radiation, but its unlikely that my computer will put a spark through the air, since that would hurt its delicate electronics. Please leave me some kind of reference to something concrete on the matter. Thanks, Hollowman512 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Home PCs? 

message: Note to Wikipedians editing this article -- there are NO legitimate medical uses of ozone, other than sterilizing substances to prevent infection.  During a high school biology class many years ago I built an ozone generator and examined its effect on living tissues.  A geranium leaf, after an exposure to ozone-enriched air for just a few minutes, showed severe cell damage.  Under a microscope it was evident that most of the surface cells had ruptured.  The same thing happens to animal cells.  If any future edits to this article claim medical benefits, they should be treated as quackery.  --QuicksilverT @ 07:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical uses 

message: I have just rewritten the Air Pollution section edits by 24.86.174.44 as they were scientifically flawed and a POV. I would ask people who know more about ozone's medical uses to check the following edit to the Use in Medicine section.
:Many hospitals in the U.S. and around the world use large ozone generators to decontaminate operating rooms between surgeries. The rooms are cleaned and then sealed airtight before being filled with ozone which effectively kills or neutralizes all remaining bacterium.
I do not know if this is true or not (it seems unlikely to me but that is purely an ignorant POV) --NHSavage 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: edits by 24.86.174.44

message: Just a quick note to suggest the redox half cells be altered, they tell the overall story but they arnt what is actually going on, the acid which should be cooled by an external container full of ice undergoes electrolysis, but the oxygen or ozone isnt produced directly.  Electrolysis produces oxygen radicals (probably via HO.), when these dimerise you get ordinary oxygen, when they trimerise you get ozone.  The actual half cell voltager you need is probably production of .OH from OH-.  The ratio of oxygen to ozone produced depends mainly on 2 things, keeping the temperature next to the anode low where the radicals form, and keeping the current density at the anode very high.  By the trick of embedding a very thin platinum foil in glass and then sanding and polishing down the edge around 30% ozone in oxygen can be produced.  With an ordinary electrolysis setup as described probably only trace amounts. Ambix 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrolysis 

message: Does anyone agree with the commercial plug to o-zone? Wiki rules are clear.
V8rik 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a link to an article a commerical plug? It's called a navigational aid. Are you saying the article is an ad? And where are the rules so clearly stated? Robert Schuman has a dab header for people named Robert Schumann. Ben Jonson is listed on the Ben Johnson page. Hell, Chuck Norris has a dab header for Chuck Norris Facts (which is dumb). People looking for the band O-zone are not too unlikely to type Ozone in their search. I did, when I was curious about the band. It took me a while to think "is it possible they spell their name 'O-zone', they probably are that cheesy". Is it doing any harm? -R. fiend 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the point. If somone is looking for information about the band we want to quickly point them in the right direction which is why this information is at the top. This is standard throughout Wikipedia. See for example: Stratosphere--NHSavage 07:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O-zone? 

message: The entire contents of the "ozone therapy" article is on this page, it seems natural to merge (i.e. delete other article).
:If the entire contents are indeed here, then it's not a merge, it's a simple redirect (not deletion). Be bold and do it. If you're unsure how, just ask. -R. fiend 06:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, trioxygen now redirects to ozone.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge w/ ozone therapy? 

message: Inadequate references. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: I was under the impression that ozone resembled cyclopropane without the hydrogens, perhaps with some sort of resonance or three-center-bonded peculiarity.  What's up with one O having three bonds and another having just one, as shown in the article?  --Tardis 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I drew the structure from Greenwood & Earnshaw - carefully reading the entire passage on O3 and noting the bent structure of the molecule.  I have heard of the similarity of ozone with cyclopropane but it is worth noting that unlike in cyclopropane, each O-O distance is not equal.  If you imagine O3 as a triangle with an O atom at each corner, two sides are 127.8 pm long but the third side is 218 pm long.  If you find a source that indicates otherwise, do mention so on this page and I'll gladly reconsider.  --Ben 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond structure 

message: King of Hearts requested some images and I have uploaded what I think are appropriate ones. However if this is not what you had in mind please give a bit more of an explicit idea here.--NHSavage 12:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images included

message: After fixing up some notation style, I am passing your article as a Good Article.  I would suggest that you be much stricted with your inline citations, your Applications section is lacking, and maybe some other bits need some more also. --Konstable 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put this up for review at: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review as most of the health issues are unreferenced and there is an edit war (albeit a low level one) on the issue of ozone and health. Plus it needs a rewrite for length and clarity.--NHSavage 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: I've added some information about ozone being a greenhouse gas to the atmopshere section. Might need to make it a bit simpler, though I have referenced as many of the terms as I thought I should. Any thoughts...? --Pauljyoung 17:59, 12 September 2006 (BST)
You might want to use the 4th IPCC report as a reference instead of the 3rd- they slightly downgrade the forcing from ozone.
Cwmagee (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenhouse Gas 

message: I have done this for to reasons. It seems to be the authors own opinion not based on references. Also some parts are wrong and I suspect other misconcieved. If you have refernces for these please give them.
"Something that studies tend to ignore is 1) atmospheric and pollution-induced ozone is only created during the day, and 2) asthma and allergy sufferers very frequently have attacks late at night, 3) thunderstorms create tons of low-level ozone and ionization but reduce pollution dratically and, 4) there are never reports of emergency rooms being filled with asthmatics or bronchial sufferers after a thunderstorm, 5) the US never puts out an ozone alert after a thunderstorm."
# asthma attacks occur late at night. There could be many reasons for this. I do not know enough to comment on the physiology but iut could be that the reaction is a delayed one. Also are the attacks at night the ones caused by air pollution or the baseline? Please provide reference.
# ozone can be generated by lightning but the main origin of high summer ozone at the ground is from human generated emissions. This is well established
# storms "reduce pollution dratically" - please define pollution. Most countries define low level ozone as polution so if storms icnrease ozone they increase one type of pollution. Which pollution are you saying they decrease?
# just because something is natural does not mean it is good for you - do you fancy some Deadly nightshade for dinner?
# NOx from lightning is an important natural source of ozone and I agree this not clear enough in this article.
# On the plot you link to - this was a very unusual episode and without proper research you cannot simply state "this was thnderstorms". Was this concentration of ozone actually measured at the surface (models are not perfect, I know, I have helped program one) and was there no AQ alert issued despite increased ozone? If someoen has published this in a reputable source please provide a refernce. 
# Finally - there are lots of reasons why a thunderstorm makes the air feel fresher. The air is mixed with cleaer air from above, it is cooled down and particles are washed out. All of these are unrelated to ozone.
--NHSavage 18:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit to air pollution section 

message: Is it just me or is the sentence: "The FDA determined in it's early history and made it a law that only drugs could cure any disease and thus the slow and sometimes backwards evolution of US alternative healthcare." somewhat ungrammatical, unencyclopaedic, and POV? At the very least this would require a citation for the first part and a strike of the bahsing of US alternative medicine, no? The rest of the paragraph makes the opposition of FDA quite clear. Maybe just delete that whole sentence? --Millard73 06:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone Therapy 

message: Revision as of 02:52, 20 September 2006 (edit) made a large number of changes to the article. Some of these are significant and misleading. Please do not make these changes again without discussing them here and providing a useful edit summary. "summary, conclusions, evidence" is not informative. I have reverted these changes. Wikipedia is not a forum for selling products no matter how good you think they are. I will soon explain my problems with your edit one by one. Please discuss them.--NHSavage 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and thunderstorms can cause asthma attacks see: Anderson et al, 2001. --NHSavage 09:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by 71.198.29.122 

message: These are now taken from the NIST Chemistry WebBook. There seems to be some confusion on the web about the melting point with various pages having -197.7 which is what is here. If there is a good reference for -197.7 please correct this here and give the reference. (it may have been a typo that propogated of course).--NHSavage 09:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiling and melting points 

message: As per the Review opened on this page, this article has been delisted from Good Article status, concerns include something about low level edit wars, and weasel wording near the end. Archived discussion here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 6, though I have to admit it was archived a bit late, so the article may of been fixed by now, in which case, feel free to open another review, there's no limit on the number heh. Homestarmy 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: As the person who requested delisting I feel I should do my bit to get this article back up to a GA. As I see it there are now two main areas which need work. First the section on applications is very short on references for these applications. This should be fairly easy to get information on and I think the content looks generally ok. The second problematic section the section on health effects and this is harder. It probably needs a seperate section with sub sections on the health and safety type information for its use in industry etc. Then there needs to be a subsection on health effects of ozone pollution citing relevant epidemiological studies etc. Finally there should be a section on the physiology of ozone. I'll try and start on this but the health aspects are way beyond my current knowlege so it would be good to try and get an expert on this.--NHSavage 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Route back to GA

message: I have removed the following addition to this article.
Ozone is produced by the action of lightning on Oxygen in the air.It causes O2 to split,releasing 2 atoms of O.Each of these combines with another molecule of O2 to give 1 molecule of Ozone(O3)each.The chemical reaction for this is:
O2→O+O(In presence of lightning);O+O2→O3
I have studied atmospheric chemistry for over 10 years as a PhD student and postdoctoral researcher. I have never come across any reference to this reaction being of any importance. In the stratosphere ozone formation mostly occurs from the photolysis of oxygen:
O2+photon→O+O
O+O2→O3
In the troposphere ozone is either transported from the stratosphere or is produced by the following cyclic reactions
NO2+photon → NO + O
O + O2 → O3
NO + HO2 → NO2 + OH
Net:
O2 + HO2 → O3 + OH
The role of hydroperoxy radical can also be taken by other peroxy radicals but that is the basic mechanism. If the direct formation from lightning is important please give a reference. (I am not saying it does not happen, merely that it is very small compared to other sources.). Lightning increases ozone because it creates NO which can catalyse the reaction above.--NHSavage 18:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural production 

message: I'm reading a sharper image catalog and it is selling a "lotus" brand product that claims to turn water into ozone (they never say ozone, they say 03) and you can clean with it.  After cleaning it turns back into water and is harmless.  Anybody know about this stuff?
First, does there product actually turn water into ozone?  If yes, what percent of the stuff coming out of the bottle is ozone?  And, does the ozone clean well?  Does it turn back into harmless water?  Any help about this would be great.  Thanks a lot. Rjkd12 05:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ozone is produced from oxygen in the air by the unit, then mixed into water. Similar systems are used in hot tubs and newer water treatment plants. It seems to be legit and is probably the standard water cleaning tech of the future. See  for example. SBHarris 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot.  That helped out.  It kinda concerns me that it was written by lotus, but it still seems good.  The skeptic side of me is always concered about the "next big thing" though.  Rjkd12 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharper Image, use for sanitation?

message: This article helped me a lot when I was writing my science essay for global wariming!!!!
YES IT DID!!!! :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.20.92 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HI 

message: Someone has abused the page under the first section "Physical Properties" by typing in garbage.  Someone skilled in reverting abusive edits should restore the page content.  (Please feel free to remove this talk section once the abuse has been reverted.) Dave 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine now William M. Connolley 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent abuse 

message: Isn't ozone also a stimulant, albeit an unhealthy one? -- Beland 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stimulant 

message: Why has some one ruined the structure of this article by desperately inserting the following FDA & drug company propaganda into the intro
"Ozone therapy is a controversial alternative medicine practice; mainstream scientific medicine has found ozone to be harmful to humans, and equipment intended to be used for ozone therapy is banned in the United States.[1]" this needs further citation as the FDA (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Volume 8, section 801.415) quotes no science, conceeded inhaling ozone is toxic, the human lungs have evolved to breath air near sea level (approx 80% nitrogen 20% oxygen) any other gas in concentration including oxygen will be toxic. the ozone therapy toxicity alleged by the FDA and others is POV. Any way all these issues are delt with in due course elsewhere in the ozone and ozone therapy article, suggest it be removed.
I have removed the following statement;  
"Ozone therapy is a controversial alternative medicine practice; mainstream scientific medicine has found ozone to be harmful to humans,[1] and equipment intended to be used for ozone therapy is banned in the United States.[2]"
This sentence is misleading at best, but more likely sheer intentional propaganda which is not supported by the available science.
The reference used to label ozone therapy as harmful to humans is a work place safety guide not a medical journal, very many work places are exposed to ozone emissions and no scientist disputes that inhaling ozone in concentration causes significant health problems.
But people need to make a distinction between inhaling ozone and it's infusion into blood.
There is now well establish research (Garber 1991, Bocci 1993, Shinriki 1998, Zimran 2000, Tylicki 2004, Travagli 2006 & 2007) that shows when ozone (<80ug/ml) is mixed with human blood the antioxidant's in plasma protect blood cells from oxidation damage by ozone; this is qualified by experiments that show individual blood components separated from plasma are vulnerable to ozone damage.
Since as early as the 1920's some very resourceful organizations have been trying to discredit ozone therapy, but they have been unable to publish any research that proves ozone therapy is toxic. The most notable attempt (Cataldo 2005) reported that ozone when mixed with blood was a poison as it oxidized red blood cells ands broke down haemoglobin ( Zimran 2000 and others had previously shown blood ozonation at therapeutic doses causes no haemolysis or trace of methaemoglobin).  On closer examination of Cataldo's experiment it was revealed that although he claimed to have used whole blood, he in fact diluted bovine blood with distilled water (9.1ml of blood to 300ml water) so also diluting the concentration of plasma antioxidant's, then applied ozone in a concentration 4 fold that prescribe by ozone therapist's (every drug has a threshold), after correspondence to the editor who published Cataldo's research. Cataldo replied conceding that his research did not show ozone therapy was toxic and then volunteered that ozone must be a homeopathic type remedy, which is also not supported by ozone researchers. (Biological Macromolecules 2005 Dec 30;37(5):287-8; author reply 289-90)
The difference between whole blood ozonation and Cataldo's blood dilution experiment which causes haemolysis even with oxygen have been further clarified by the same journal.
(Biological Macromolecules, Travagli 2006 (39) 317-320)
There is evidence (not conclusive) to suggest ozone has a natural physiological role in human blood (Wentworth 2002, Babior 2003) which would explain the remarkable absence of side effects researchers of blood ozonation have observed. 
That said, yes there are reports of adverse effects of ozone therapy some fatal (air embolisms etc) but none of these are the result of any toxicity of the ozone but rather neglegence on the part of the numerous quacks who practice it.
The second part of the statement is also wrong, every American is entitled to own and use a medical ozone generator, Only marketing an ozone generator as a cure for disease is prohibited.
It is valid that wiki state the policy of an authority like the FDA but equally valid that it should state the FDA dont quote any relevent science.Craig rd (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with removing any mention of ozone as therapy in the article completely, is that THAT is also pushing a POV. The truth is that there isn't any agreement on the subject yet. Being a minority POV, I've inserted a small neutral paragraph and given the main article Ozone therapy, a link which needs to stay here. The issue can be debated there, so long as a neutral summary is left here. Personally, I don't think ozone therapy deserves to be ranked with homeopathy as obvious quackery (and even if it was, I think homeopathy deserves mention in Wikipedia, and indeed, it is mentioned and has its own Wiki). Like vitamins (but unlike homeopathy!), ozone has an obvious possible physical mechanism of action, since it's already present physiologically and is of use to real organisms. It wouldn't surprise me if a use is not found for it in medicine, somewhere, eventually. If it's killing microbes artificially in your hot tub, and naturally in your blood, then why not artifially in your blood? This isn't a giant leap of faith! Remains to be well-proved, sure, but deserves mention as hypothesis and practice, so long as both sides of the argument are presented. SBHarris 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ozone therapy in intro

message: User:Joerogel (Special:Contributions/Joerogel) showed up for two days and rewrote the health effects section in extremely technical language, then contributed nothing more, aside from one edit to another article.   
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozone&diff=67717313&oldid=67086538
Probably much of this is an improvement, but I think a section on health effects should be more transparent to non-chemists.  A review of these changes by someone competent to do so would be welcomed.  MaxEnt (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Health effects

message: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html is an article explaining how ground-level ozone is a harmful pollutant. I get that. But what I do not get is the use of ozone for sanitizing hot tub and swimming pool water. So here are my two questions:
1. Is this practice dangerous for the people in the water? 
2. Does it contribute to ground-level ozone pollution? 
Honestly, I've been trying to figure this out, but have found no definitive answer.
68.230.182.135 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spa and Pool Ozone Question...Ground level pollution?

message: I have tagged the section as clearly biased because it uses non-independent industry references to support claims. I am not saying the claims are incorrect, but that they have the usual spin to be expected. I extended one of the citations to show the source author was a CEO of a ozone system maker. I noted that that report shows tapwater also removes 99.95% (compared to 99.99% claimed for ozonated water). I changed another source which was a deadlink to its page from archive.org - again an industry source which made a 99.9% claim without citing its own sources. I did not check the other claims, so the whole section needs reviewing with a clear neutral POV. -Wikianon (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the referenced article and found it to be quite credible. I will edit the Wikipedia article accordingly. It is better for someone without a personal interest in the topic to make such edits to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest WP:COI. I do have one question about the article: Tap water seems to be quite effective at reducing the level of bacteria on lettuce (tap water rinse for 60 sec.is as effective as 30 sec of exposure to ozonated water, although longer exposure to ozonated water gives a further 3-fold reduction). Why is ozonated water so much more effective on chicken or beef than on lettuce? Silverchemist (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Consumer applications 

message: As far as I can see there are no references to most of the data in the infobox and in the article as whole. It would be nice if someone could identify the sources...--SiriusB (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This does not work, as it leads to an unviewable Youtube video, and I don't consider Youtube a particularly reliable source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.199.136 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 45 

message: Quite how UV and hydrocarbons produce ozone is not obvious. Explanation is required. Equations would be appreciated (presumably involving atmospheric oxygen).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.127.131 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Detail Required 

message: Isn't everyone familiar with the profoundly metallic smell of mix-masters? Is this not ionization? That is, ozone?
It's one of the most memorable smells of my infancy (early 60's). Maybe they don't make them as torquey anymore.
I would have thought they might be the most obvious example of the smell people would recognise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.127.131 (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mix Masters, et al 

message: O3 is heavier than O2 which most of the O in the air is, and definitely heavier than N2 which consists of most of the air.  So why does Ozone rise? -- Shalom שלום ♫ (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. Pause to think for a moment: why do N2 and O2 remain mixed? The answer is turbosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Also,  formed near the surface of the earth does not contribute to the ozone layer, which is formed at high altitudes by UV radiation from the sun.—Tetracube (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Ozone is O3 why does it rise to the top of the atmosphere? 

message: the details about the ozone depletion are not given in the article. It also should be included in in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.11.252 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The details aren't given because the article is an overview of ozone. The subject of ozone depletion is summarized in the Ozone layer section—"In recent decades the amount of ozone in the stratosphere has been declining mostly because of emissions of CFCs and similar chlorinated and brominated organic molecules, which have increased the concentration of ozone-depleting catalysts above the natural background"—and followed by a prominently placed link to the Ozone depletion article where the details may be found; this link is repeated under "See also" at the end of the article. Perhaps the summary could be expanded a bit, but there probably isn't room for great detail here. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ozone depletion 

message: just wondering , anyone have an idea about this ozone generation method? I just read a article from a website www.biotek-ozone.com, which they claimed they can generate the ozone from water molecules H2O and turn it into a high concnetrated ozonated water,talking about up to 6ppm and it only need normal tap water and  household electricity.  If that is the case, application with this type of ozone generation will be much wider than before, any comments? Evoact (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  electrolytic ozone generation, generate ozone from water. 

message: A user added
:Application of ozone can extend the shelf life of fruit storage by microbial reduction, reduce the formation of mould to prevent fruit deterioration during storage, maintain the firmless of fruits during storage and degrade the residual pesticide on postharvest fruits. Ozone also facilitates the removal of heavy metal by EDTA and degradation of polychlorinated biphenyl compound(PCB) from contaminated soil. Ozone application to the fruits can also increase the antioxidants (total phenol and flavonoids) contents.
For the first half I found some references, but not for the EDTA, heavy metals, biphenyls and not for the antioxidants.
*
* The application of ozone for fruit processing is yet another process that is being reevaluated
*
Should we re add the referencable content?--Stone (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone in Agriculture 

message: I was reading through this, especially looking for info on health effects. Some ideas on things that could be improved:
* concentration/fraction units consistency: mainly in mole fractions: sometimes as 0.1 µmol/mol (ppm), other times 100 nmol/mol (ppb). But other places, especially other Wikipeda articles µg/m³ used. Even if various organisations recommend 0.1 µmol/mol, 100 nmol/mol and 200 µg/m³, they should both be compared in the article using the same units.
* Also I had no idea what wt% meant; neither did someone else; is it a common abbreviation? I would have understood w/w.
* probably worth explicitly pointing out the conversion between mole fraction and mass concentration. I inferred 2 µg/m³ ≈ 1 nmol/mol; I assume it is specific to ozone in air.
* "Air pollution" and "Safety regulations" sections are similar and shouldn't be physically separated so much. Even have duplicate déjà vu info.
Vadmium (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects and environmental concentrations 

message: From this article: "Ozone is similarly formed in the Catatumbo lightning storms phenomenon on the Catatumbo River in Venezuela, which helps to replenish ozone in the upper troposphere."
And then, in :
The frequent, powerful flashes of lightning over this relatively small area are considered to be the world's largest single generator of tropospheric ozone[2] but not replenishing the ozone layer, as the latter is located in the stratosphere[3].
--77.209.253.154 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference in Spanish. --Error (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catatumbo lightning ozone production: contradiction in Wikipedia 

message: Can i get a basic list of the health effects? Please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahk11 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312702/ Georgearnold23 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone Health Effects? 

message: The article states that ozone is unstable but does not appear to quantify its stability. If we created a mixture of O2 and O3 in a sealed flask, how much O3 would remain after one day at standard conditions? This is an important physical characteristic of any chemically-unstable compound and an important omission in the article. David Spector (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ozone#Reactions mentions its half life in the atmosphere as approximately 0.5 h. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantitative stability 

message: Second paragraph in section 6:2 "when inhaled, ozone reacts with compounds lining the lungs..." cited [44] here's the link http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.freeradbiomed.2004.04.024 after opening the link and reading it the cited information doesn't match and to me it is taken out of context I think the second paragraph in section 6:2 should be removed and replaced with a more logical explanation of the adverse effects of inhaling ozone.urName (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 6:2 physiology context doesn't match the cited source 

message: I came with just an idle curiosity and learned so much about ozone from this Wikipedia page. From its chemistry to industrial applications, I really appreciate you putting together such an accessible article. Many thanks! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article! 

message: Quote: "This quantity is 20,000 times the WHO-recommended limits stated above." I don't understand this sentence. 
- Which quantity is meant? "0.3 μmol/mol"?  
- "WHO-recommended limits stated above"? It reference something earlier in the article but what? The ppb limits in health section? But this health section is about ozone in air not in water. This just doesn't seem right.
I traced the edit back to 19:09 29 jan 2009 by 217.125.97.102.
I could not find any WHO limits on ozone in  (drinking) water.
Thanks for any clarification. BartYgor (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to WHO in 8.2 Consumers 

message: The molecular structure is bent, not dihedral. Thought it should be updated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.130.147 (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, but you are confusing the molecular shape for coordination geometry. The molecular shape is "Triangular dihedral", the coordination geometry is "bent". Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not dihedral 

message: That reaction with copper was somewhere ill, I made it (I think) better but it would be nice if somebody else checked this. 193.242.142.126 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong reaction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cwtozone.com/files/articles/Food_Produce/Article%20-%20Veg.%20Process%20washwater.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the purpose and function of the depicted "ozonometer"? Who is John Smyth? To me, this looks just like a wooden tube. Is this a hoax? --MauriceKA (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: if you click on the image and read the contributors caption for the image it may make more sense. Perhaps some of the caption text could be added to the image caption in the article. Plantsurfer 12:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozonometer - purpose and function 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060601061532/http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/ozone.html to http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/ozone.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060601061532/http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/ozone.html to http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/ozone.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913043522/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050909162153/http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82790.pdf to http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82790.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327085613/http://www.iitk.ac.in/che/jpg/papersb/full%20papers/K-106.pdf to http://www.iitk.ac.in/che/jpg/papersb/full%20papers/K-106.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've removing the following completely misattributed statement, and I'm noting why here so that no one puts it back: 
Alas, Benjamin Franklin died on April 17, 1790. While his Poor Richard's Almanac may have included the phrase "Early to Bed, and Early to Rise" Franklin most certainly did not write the 1855 book of that title, and there is no reason to believe that its anonymous author had any particularly deep knowledge of science or ozone. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed completely misattributed statement 

message: I'm 75% sure ozone generators cannot produce this much:
Ozone cannot be stored and transported like other industrial gases (because it quickly decays into diatomic oxygen) and must therefore be produced on site. Available ozone generators vary in the arrangement and design of the high-voltage electrodes. At production capacities higher than HERE---> 20 kg per hour, a gas/water tube heat-exchanger may be utilized as ground electrode and assembled with tubular high-voltage electrodes on the gas-side. The regime of typical gas pressures is around 2 bars (200 kPa) absolute in oxygen and 3 bars (300 kPa) absolute in air. Several megawatts of electrical power may be installed in large facilities, applied as one phase AC current at 50 to 8000 Hz and peak voltages between 3,000 and 20,000 volts. Applied voltage is usually inversely related to the applied frequency.  <!-74.83.247.165 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Many generators, particularly in Europe where ozone is used extensively for water decontamination, can exceed 100 kg/h. There are many ways to generate it besides direct electrical discharge, for example, from flashtubes or corona discharges to auroras. Where there's a demand someone will find a way. Zaereth (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  20kg an hour is a lot for an ozone generator 

message: Я думаю што метан сгорит в озоновых дырах .. 
176.59.213.117 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you define "burning" as a chemical reaction (eg: rapid oxidation), then sure, the methane burns. But if you mean flames and fire, then no, that's not what happens. The ozone reacts with the methane much like it would with plastics or skin tissue, like water reacts with steel to form rust. Zaereth (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Пугали метаном болот и озоновыми дырами.  

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ozonator. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ozonator" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Add the following to this section, "Employing ozone in the anthraquinone process instead of oxygen, trioxidane is produced"?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthraquinone_process&diff=849323810&oldid=818274136&diffmode=source -- Ktsquare (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  trioxidane 

message: In the section currently called "Ozone air pollution" multiple measuring units are used. 
Can someone point me to a simple converter page or equation? 
From the article: "According to scientists with the US EPA, susceptible people can be adversely affected by ozone levels as low as 40 nmol/mol."
What is that in ppm? 
So I can compare it to the lowest OSHA limit of 0.05 ppm:
*https://ozonesolutions.com/blog/osha-and-ozone 
*Ozone. OSHA Occupational Chemical Database.  Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. 40 nanomoles per mole equals 40 parts per billion (ppb), which equals 0.04 parts per million (ppm). Just move the decimal point three places ahead. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help converting 40 nmol/mol to ppm 

message: This text was added to Reactions: 
> As such, in typical office or home environment, where air changes per hour vary between 5 and 8 ACH,[26] ozone has a half life of as short as thirty minutes.[27]
Problem is that neither cite (26 nor 27) support what is being claimed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafariJones (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Citations in odd Reactions section claim 

message: Ozone may have implications between plant-pollinator relationships. These relationships rely on special characteristics and markings and behavioral aspects to co-align and ozone could have a disrupting effect on one or more of these natural mechanisms.
Rollin, Orianne (July 2022). "Effects of ozone air pollution on crop pollinators and pollination". Global Environmental Change. 75 (102529) – via Elsevier Science Direct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reid Harley56 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

message: Hello,  I love wikipedia for it's strict presentation of facts and the pervading theme of factual information, no politics. I think the Ozone page gets a little off track from this in the "Low level ozone in urban areas" sub heading.  At the end of one paragraph, the sentence "People experiencing poverty are more affected by pollution in general, even though these populations are less likely to be contributing to pollution levels." seems tacked on.  While probably true, it does not flow with the factual info and might have the appearance of politicking.  Thank you for your time. Jprex8 (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add on sentence regarding poverty 

message: This page and Ground-level ozone both have a hyperlocal focus on ozone pollution in Colorado's North Front Range. It occurs in the "Low level ozone in urban areas" section of this page and under "Problem Areas" on the ground-level ozone page. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but shouldn't those sections be built around discussion of ozone pollution on a global level rather than in one section of one state? Davehogg (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd focus on Colorado