Talk:Ozone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Ozone is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Ozone at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
WikiProject Chemicals / Core  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.
 

Contents

Physical Properties - odd sentence[edit]

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)


Just a kid[edit]

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) -- moved from comment page MaxEnt (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

smell from photocopiers[edit]

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)

Yes its true! (Source: [1]) Noahk11 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly-Cool Ozone Generation Pictures[edit]

I have some (IMHO) really cool pictures of corona discharge ozone production from a home-built ozone machine here: http://erikmartin.com/sci/ozone/ozone.html They are marked as public domain on the web page. If anyone thinks that any of them might add something to the article, please feel free to use them.

colorless and odorless?[edit]

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)
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)
  • the smell of ozone itself has been covered by now but what of the smell experienced aftrer lightning? The freed electrons or due to ionization explanations do not sound convincing. Is it actually nitrogen oxide? V8rik 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
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)

Generation of ozone[edit]

how can ozone generated through electronics

By passing a spark through oxygen. Physchim62 23:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

From Home PCs?[edit]

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)

excellent FAQ available at www.faqs.org[edit]

There is an excellent FAQ about (stratospheric) ozone available here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/

Please add as external link (if appropriate) - thanks!

Medical uses[edit]

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)

____________________________

February 4, 2007

Searched World Health Organization databases but found nothing relevant.

Came across www.quackwatch.org headed by Stephen Barrett MD. The site seems to use credible reasearch material in their articles.

Have contacted Stephen Barrett to request his contribution to "Ozone and health" section of Wiki "Ozone" article.

Faith Child...

_____________________________

edits by 24.86.174.44[edit]

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)

I did a research paper on ozone in chemistry and interviewed a dentist who uses an ozone gun, ( it was a corona discharge generator) and they put ozone into tooth cavities before doing fillings, this kills bacteria and yet had no effect on the tooth enamel. So they are used for medial purposes, i will update this with a link to the machines website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.65.135 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Electrolysis[edit]

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)

O-zone?[edit]

Does anyone agree with the commercial plug to o-zone? Wiki rules are clear. V8rik 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Shouldn't the link to correct spelling of some band with a similar name be at the bottom of the page, not the top? I think I'll go move it. The primary purpose of this article is to have information about Ozone, not O-zone. And at any rate it certainly won't hurt anything if it's in the foot-notes. -Flasher702

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)
  • Issue solved after consulting Wiki guidelines V8rik 23:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well done. I didn't realize there was an ozone (disambiguation) page. That link certianly should have been there all along; I'm quite surprised it wasn't. -R. fiend 23:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge w/ ozone therapy?[edit]

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)

gitrdane

Hey, speaking of redirects, trioxygen ought to redirect here. I'd do it myself, but I'm unregistered. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, trioxygen now redirects to ozone. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

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

Bond structure[edit]

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)

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).

Ozone is bent, not cyclic. However, an interesting piece of trivia is that it was indeed thought to be cyclic at some point. I don't know exactly when was the correct structure deduced, but if you look for example at Pauling's 1931 paper "The nature of the chemical bond", it proposes the cyclic structure. Itub 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By my theoretical work, the cyclic O3 structure should be able to exist, as does cyclopropane. But, the bent-linear structure is much more stable and more likely to form when there is an excess of electrons in the reaction, as with a spark. The bent-linear form has two too many electrons for a stable electron cloud, which is why it degrades with time. The linear bent-form has an electron cloud structure like CO2 but with two electrons tucked in on one side of the center nucleus. The two extra electrons on one side makes the molecule bent. My Flatley (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Images included[edit]

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)

First sentence[edit]

While reading the article, I noticed the first sentence had horrible grammar. I tried to improve it, but the fact that the a single Oxygen atom and the O2 molecule are called the same thing makes this opening pretty tricky. TimL 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In these type of circumstances, you can refer to O2 as molecular oxygen or dioxygen, and to O as atomic oxygen.
--Ben 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

questions[edit]

i was reading the wikipedia article about ozone and im just a grade 5 student so i don't understand what all this mean.i need to learn about the ozone so can someone please explain what it is to me.(please don't make it complex)

Ozone (O3) is a chemical compound. A chemical compound is matter that forms when the elements combine. Ozone in particular is the union of three oxygen atoms. So in this case oxygen is just combining with itself. You've probably heard of the most famous chemical compound, H2O (water). In water, 2 hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom.

Please explain...[edit]

From the History section: "However the smell is also attributed to the discharge of the electrical current from the dipole bonding and reformation of the oxygen model, which at high temperatures is known to release an inert odor."

  • What the heck does this mean? Surely we are not smelling a model? What is an inert odor?
  • Why is most of the history section a discussion on the smell?

Thanks, Walkerma 05:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ozone requires electricity to be made, this is what gives it the third oxygen atom. Simplified: When an electric arc occurs the oxygen in the air gets another bond and turns into o3, therefore you smell it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Audiophilia (talkcontribs) 12:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does a third atom give it a smell? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

GA[edit]

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)

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)

Greenhouse Gas[edit]

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)

Reverted edit to air pollution section[edit]

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."

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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?
  4. just because something is natural does not mean it is good for you - do you fancy some Deadly nightshade for dinner?
  5. NOx from lightning is an important natural source of ozone and I agree this not clear enough in this article.
  6. 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.
  7. 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)

Ozone Therapy[edit]

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)

There is a direct contradiction in this section:

"It is not illegal to sell medical-grade ozone machines in the US, nor is it illegal to own one or use one. What is illegal is to sell them while claiming it treats disease...It is legal to sell or own a medical-grade ozone machine in the US. It is also legal to self-administer ozone."

Clearly these can't both be true. Cameron McCormack 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed this is confusing and contradicted by this sentence in the introduction of the article

"Ozone therapy is a controversial alternative medicne 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]

Regards the [1] first reference in this article," Lewis, Jr, R. J. (1993). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold, Co., Inc" this has been used to label ozone therapy as harmful to humans, I have not bee able to locate this text so can not confirm that this is correct, considering that this publication is obviously not a peer reviewed medical journal and is advertised as a "comprehensive handbook of hazard information on substances encountered in the workplace" i am skeptical that it would make detailed reference to any research of medical applications of ozone. Could the person that has provided this source please provide a copy of the text and its references. Why is someone is so desperate to insert this FDA propaganda or POV into the intro when all these issue are suitable dealt with in the section ozone therapy and the ozone therapy page. The second part of the sentence is also misleading, ozone generators are not banned in the United states, only marketing them as a cure for disease is prohibited. Anybody see any need for this sentence in the intro? Craig rd (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

edits by 71.198.29.122[edit]

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)

  1. added: sometimes called "an excited oxygen atom or O<sub>3" . It is not called an excited oxygen atom. Ozone is 3 oxygen atoms together not one. --NHSavage 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. changed unstable at high concentration to just unstable. Why? At lower atmospheric concentrations the lifetime of ozone is 22 days. see reference lower in the article. The removal at these concentrations is not by self reaction either. See section on air pollution.--NHSavage 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Changed from: ground level ozone is an air pollutant with harmful effects on lung function to has now been deemed an air pollutant with dangerous concentrations always being found with and created by UV rays and high concentrations of pollution which has been found to have harmful effects on lung function; . "deemed an air pollutant" - by whom? "dangerous concentrations always being found with and created by UV rays and high concentrations of pollution" - this makes no sense at all, please explain better.--NHSavage 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ozone is mostly produced from ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen and by thunderstorms.. Thunderstorms are irrelevant in the stratosphere (which is what this part of the article is discussing.)--NHSavage 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Less oxygen = less stratoshperic ozone protection. Some industrial areas of emerging countries are so low in oxygen (down to 12%, we die at 8%, we were designed for 38%) that they have oxygen booths set up on street corners for pedestrians with breathing problems. Ozone is necessary for life to exist on Earth to keep UV rays, natural & manmade pollutants, molds, and bacterias/germs at bay. Assistant and Associate Director of the National Agriculture Biosecurity Center (Class II BioHazard lab)– located at KSU, Dr. Marsden answers the question, "Is Ozone Bad for you?" High levels of these allergens and pollution-induced ozone added to lower levels of oxygen combine to wreak havoc on immune systems and shorten the lives of humans, animals, and plants.. This is a load of nonsense. There is no significant change in oxygen concentations and the piece by Dr Marsden is an advert for an ozone machine. This has no place in a section on stratospheric ozone (about 10 to 20 km above the ground - the article should actually say this I admit)--NHSavage 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. 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 when power plants tend to vent toxic fumes, cars and busses stop running, and ozone is depleted, 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) No one has ever put out an ozone alert during or after a thunderstorm.. As I said before this is original research. It also does not belong at this point in the text--NHSavage 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh and thunderstorms can cause asthma attacks see: Anderson et al, 2001. --NHSavage 09:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Photolysis and reaction with hydroxyl radicals are the main removal mechanisms from the air of; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), Hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), Benzene "during the day", Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), Formaldehyde (HCHO) and Methylene chloride (MC). What has this got to do with ozone?--NHSavage 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. for reasons of the earth's constant motion and the corresponding movement of ozone. Yes transport of ozone is important but this is very badly worded and needs to be in a seperate sentance not stuck in the middle of what I just wrote.--NHSavage 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Other research shows that the link is only casual since many other body mechanisms create the same responses. Moreover, it is theorized that the powerful oxidizing properties of ozone may be a contributing factor of inflammation.[citation needed] However, many pro-ozone proponents cite evidence of anti-inflamatory effects of ozone therapy among a host of other healthful effects. Backing this up is the fact that over 12 industrialized countries already allow such therapies, the US not being one of them. The American Medical Association long ago got the US to create a law that ststes only a drug may cure a disease or alleviate symptoms of sickness. Hence the American use of "may help to alleviate" on almost all supplements. There is testing going on using ozone as the basis of treatment. There are some tests that are going on and tests already done in dentistry.. I will look at this in more detail as I am not an expert on health issues. However if your science is as good as the above I don't hold out much hope.--NHSavage 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. What are the worst sources of industrial air pollution? Electric power plants. They are the single largest industrial source of some of the worst air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury. In 1998, power plants were responsible for 67 percent of the annual total sulfur dioxide, more than one-quarter of the nitrogen oxides, 33 percent of the mercury and 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. What effect does this pollution have on Humans? Scientists have shown that power plant pollution is linked to serious health effects and environmental damage: Premature death: In the eastern United States, sulfur dioxide is the primary component of fine particles that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, and are linked with respiratory disease and premature death. Power plants emit two-thirds of U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and are responsible for shortening the lives of an estimated 30,000 Americans each year. Asthma: Nitrogen oxides are major ingredients in daylight pollution-produced ozone (smog). During 1999, ozone levels in high pollution areas rose above the level the EPA deems healthy more than 7,694 times in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Smog and fine particle pollution are especially damaging for the 14.9 million asthma sufferers in this country, including 5 million children. In 1997, this combination triggered more than 6 million asthma attacks and sent almost 160,000 people to the emergency room in the eastern United States alone. Note: Contrary to the Ozone=Pollution/smog theory, the heavy concentrations of ozone, hydroxils, and ionization created by thunderstorms does not seem to adversely affect allergy and asthma sufferers and instead seems to benefit them leaving the air smelling clean and clear of irritants and pollutants. Not one government-funded study seems to take this into account or report why this is so contrary to the popular belief. . Most of this is irrelevant. This is an article on ozone. Most of this information belongs in the more general air pollution article. The final point is spurious as I said above. There is evidence that ozone may actually fall after a thunderstorm in polluted conditions (I will provide a reference for this shortly). This is due to strong mixing of air bringing cleaner air from above and removing polluted air. It is not due to ozone removing pollution. --NHSavage 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Finally the see also on hydroxyl is not really relevant and is already linked in the article. The external link is again more relevant to the topic of air pollution not ozone specifically.

Boiling and melting points[edit]

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)

Delisted GA[edit]

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)

Route back to GA[edit]

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)

Natural production[edit]

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)

Standard enthalpy of formation[edit]

In the article the standard enthalpy of formation is given. I would like to known the photon energy E'=hf' which is required to spilt an ozone molecule by light. If a certain energy E=hf is required to split O2 in two atoms, the energy to form two molecules ozone from three molecules O2 is E - 2x = 2 * (142.3 kJ/6.022*1023), there x = E' = hf' is the energy to split one ozone molecule by light of frequency f'. The energy E is about 5 eV corresponding to 240 nm. The photon energy required to split one ozone molecule 1/2*E - 142.3 kJ/6.022*1023 should be in the infra red.

It's therefore hard to understand, how it is possible, that ozone absorbs UV radiation. Who can explain that to me ?

The standard enthalpy of formation is given for a solid. Therefore the estimation above might not be very pricise. Nevertheless, still the energy for splitting ozone in O2 and atomic oxygen should be expected in the infra red. Another argument for that are the different voltages given for the electrolysis of water. The energy is caculated as product of the charge times voltage. From this one can calculate the mean binding energy of a oxygen atom in O2 and O3.

\Delta E_{mean} = (6/3*1.53 - 4/2*1.23) eV = 0.6 eV

For one ozone molecule the energy would be 1.8 eV. The energy to form one mole of O3 from 1.5 mole O2 would be about 180 kJ/mol instead of 143.2  kJ/mol. Still, the photon energy required to split one ozone molecule would be in the infra red.

You're forgetting that the enthalpy given to split ozone is to go to dioxygen (which has zero enthalpy of formation by definition). But you're really interested in what happens in the upper atmosphere, which is splitting of ozone to dioxygen PLUS a monatomic oxygen. So basically you have 142 kJ/mole to take O3 and give you 1 O2 plus 1/2 of an O2. But you're not done because now you also need the energy to split that 1/2 of an O2 to one 0. Which means 1/2 of the bond energy for O2 which is around 498 kJ/mole. Half of which is 249 kJ/mole. So the energy needed in your photon is 249 kJ + 142 kJ = 391 kJ/mole, which works out to about 300 nm. So you're going to need UV A at least. And in fact the absorption band for this process peaks about 250 nm. To split O2, which is how you get the O to form O3 in the first place, you need photons with 498 kJ/mole which is 235 nm, which is UV-C. And that's about right. SBHarris 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess here is something cufused. So, once again: To form 3 molecules of dioxygen one may spilt two molecules of ozone and then combine two atoms of oxygen to dioxygen. The total energy gained is the energy required to split dioxygen minus two times the energy required to split ozone. This energy is twice the energy required for the formation of one molecule ozone from dioxygen (which has zero enthalpy of formation by definition). So, if E=hf=hc/(lambda=240nm) is the energy to split dioxygen and x=E'=hf'=hc/lambda' is the energy to split ozone by light, x = 1/2E - 142 kJ/mol/6.022*1023. The wavelength is then calculated to about lambda' = 1.1 µm which is infra red.
Except the reaction never happens that way, so the net energy required is irrelevant if there is no mechanism for the reaction. You can't save photon energy in a bank for when you need it, while you screw around somehow with 2 molecules of ozone to end up with 3 molecules of dioxygen. Ozone is and must be split by light into O2 and monatomic O. End of story. That takes energy of a UV photon. If the end product was entirely somehow O2, it wouldn't. But since it isn't, it doesn't. Okay? SBHarris 10:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear User:Sbharris, I would suggest you to read carefully the article Standard_enthalpy_change_of_formation. Maybe you will change your point of view.
I've read it. It supports what I've said fully. Standard enthalpies of formation can be calculed for reactions that in real life do not happen (at least in one step). Just as here. They involve the element in most stable form at 100 kPa and 25 C, and that's surely O2, not monatomic O. If you have (or know) the energy to go from O3 to O2 (easy), you still don't know how much you need to go from O3, to O2 and O (hard), which is the intermediate reaction that you MUST do. And THAT is what your first photon needs, since that's the real reaction that happens. You can't take the 249 kJ/mole energy from monatomic O recombining back to form O2, and give it back to your incoming photon so it doesn't have to work as hard at the beginning. This is like life. In theory you can have a larger house, if you can find somebody to take your smaller one in trade and just a little extra money to boot. In practice, if you can't find that mechanism, you have to come up with the entire large-house mortgage loan from somewhere, temporarily. And that's the way nature works also. Again, there is no photon savings and trust to keep you from having to come up with all the energy for that first needed reaction all at once, at some time. We seem to be having a failure to communicate and I don't know how much more clearly to explain it. I'll leave it up to somebody else if I've still failed. SBHarris 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is absorption in the UV and the visible. see: this page. I am not an expert on spectrospcopy but the spectroscopy of ozone is complicated see this paper. If you really want to know more I think you probably need to read some text books on the subject and follow some of the references in the paper above. --NHSavage 13:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the visible absorption does not cause photodissociation, which is being discussed here (the mechanism to turn O3 back into O2). SBHarris 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the visible absorption (the "Chappuis Band") does indeed lead to photodissociation. Photodissociation via the Chappuis Band leads to ground state oxygen atoms, and excited state oxygen molecules, O21(\Sigma). This is a forbidden electronic transition which is why it is so weak (but visible in the earth's atmosphere). The much stronger absorption in the UV, the Hartley Band, leads (primarily) to excited state oxygen atoms, O(1D)+O2(1\Delta). The thermodynamic threshold of 1180 nm corresponds to forming both products in their electronic ground states,O(3P)+O2(3\Pi). In principle there is some absorption all the way out to there, but it is far too weak to be of any importance. See http://cires.colorado.edu/jimenez/AtmChem/CHEM-5151_S05_L7.pdf for a concise introduction to atmospheric photochemistry.
Thank's a lot, the list of dissociation energies on the second slide is exactly what I'm searching for. So, the dissociation energy for ozone is about 1.1 eV, 110 kJ/mol or 1.1 µ (infra red).

Sorry, but I guess someone tries to fool me. In this funny paper you can read (besides a lot of doubtful things), that the minimum energy for photodissociation of ozone corresponds exactly to 1180 nm in complete agreement to my calculations and the value of 142.3 kJ/mol for the Standard_enthalpy_change_of_formation.

Well, for the record, a value of 142.3 kJ/mol would correspond to a wavelength of 841.6 nm, not 1180 nm. You still need to account for the bond dissociation energy of O2 to free monatomic groundstate O(3P). However, I now admit my error and confess that above I was forgetting that the formation of ozone is exergetic, and so it HELPS in the energy needed to form a free O, if you need one. That indeed does DECREASE the needed photon energy necessary for a O2 + O dissociation because the energy of these bonds participates directly in the formation reaction, and so the answer for the minimum photon needed for the photodissociation is indeed in the IR, as advertised. The equation is O3 + 143 kJ/mole --> O2 + 1/2 O2 and the 1/2 O2 must be replaced by O + 249 kJ/mole if that's the reaction you want, so you end up with O3 + 143 kJ/mole + hv --> O2 + O + 249 kJ/mole. Solve for hv and you get 249-143 = 106 kJ/mole. Which is 119,625/106 = 1130 nm, in the IR, and right at the end of the Chappuis band, again as advertised. My appologies for the miscalculation and sorry for the confusion I created on this. But at least you finally got the right number and the full reason for it. SBHarris 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course 142.3 kJ/mol is not directly calculated as h*c/1100nm. From the wavelength of 240 nm (dissociation energy of O2) and 1130 nm (dissociation energy of O3) one caculates

 E = (hc/10^{-9}m/6.022*10^{23})*(1/240-2*1/1130)/2 = 143 kJ/mol

This is one half of the energy for dissociation of dioxygen minus two times the dissociation energy of ozone, since two molcules of ozone are formed in this way. The difference of 700 Joule/mol is not of importance.

It doesn't matter whether the wavelength is 1180 nm, 1122 nm or any other firgure in that range. The important thing is, that the energy is less than one third of the energy in the UV (even UV-A). In deed it may happen that the photon energy most efficient to dissociate a molecule is somewhat higher than the dissociation energy. But, there is no way that a molecule is dissociated efficiently by a photon energy more than three times higher compared to the minimum energy required to split the molecule. That means, ozone can't protect us from UV-B od UB-C radiation from the sun. This is already quit unlikely, because of the low abundance of ozone even in the high atmosphere.

Whoever you are, please sign your notes so that we can tell you're "speaking." If you will read some of the references already kindly provided above, such as [2] you will see that it is indeed quite possible for a molecule to be efficiently dissociated by light of three times the necessary energy for a minimum (but forbidden) photodissociation. Ozone absorbs UV thousands of times better in the UV than the visible, and in fact does so with nearly quantum unit efficiency in some lab systems. For reasons related to the Frank-Condon principle, molecules would rather be photodissociated into products of which at least one is electronically excited, not two products in the ground state. That includes ozone, which has a far higher cross section for that process, as noted above.SBHarris 20:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

According to some doubtful theoretical calculation mentioned in the reference, ozone would really absorb efficiently photons, having more than three times the energy required to split the molecule. But, such a funny behaviour isn't really measured, neither for ozone nor for any other molecule or atom. So, I just don't believe in that. 84.169.240.18 22:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been directly measured by dozens of teams. See the first 15 references in [3]. The red light quantum yield for photolysis is about 2, while at 254 nm it's at least 16 [4]. You can believe whatever you'd like. SBHarris 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I also read a lot, claiming that there is measured or calculated something about UV absorption of ozone in the stratosphere. But, I can't see any proof, that really any considerable amount, as compared to the total radiation from the sun, is in fact absorbed by ozone in the atmosphere. 84.169.222.205 09:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had perpetual discussions with this guy on german wikipedia. You won't ever get the truth into his head, no matter how hard you try. Don't bother. I guess it is a matter of brain chemistry much more than anything else.--88.64.159.172 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sharper Image, use for sanitation?[edit]

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)

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 [5] for example. SBHarris 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
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)

HI[edit]

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)

Recent abuse[edit]

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)

Seems fine now William M. Connolley 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Regards Physiology of Ozone[edit]

With regards to the information posted under Physiology of ozone as at 20th May 2007, much of what is stated here may have been misinterpreted and is not consistent with the available research. It is therefore very misleading, suggest it be deleted and re- written as follows;

Research by Wentworth and colleagues of the Department of Chemistry at the Scripps Research Institute has lead them to believe that neutrophils a type of white blood cell, produce ozone in the context of immune function (1) and ozone is generated in the atherosclerotic vessel as a by-product of the inflammatory response (2 & 3).The full impact of their discovery on our understanding of degenerative vascular diseases and therapy is not yet clear (3). The claim that the body creates ozone in vivo has not yet been confirmed by peer’s who have reviewed their work. (4) (Kettle et al 2004)& (5)(Pryor et al 2006).

Citations; 1.Wentworth P, McDunn JE, Wentworth AD, et al., Evidence for antibody-catalysed ozone formation in bacterial killing and inflammation. Science 13 Dec 2002; 298: 2195-2199

2. Wentworth P Jr., J. Nieva, C. Takeuchi, R. Galve, A. D. Wentworth, R. B. Dilley, G. A. DeLaria, A. Saven, B. M. Babior, K. D. Janda, A. Eschenmoser, R. A. Lerner, Evidence for ozone formation in human atherosclerotic arteries. Science 302, 1053-1056 (2003). [Abstract] [Full Text]

3.Joseph Loscalzo, M.D., Ph.D. Ozone — From Environmental Pollutant to Atherogenic Determinant N Engl J Med 2004; 350:834-835, Feb 19, 2004.

4.Kettle AJ, Clark BM, Winterbourn CC. Free Radical Research, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, New Zealand. tony.kettle@chmeds.ac.nz Superoxide converts indigo carmine to isatin sulfonic acid: Implications for the hypothesis that neutrophils produce ozone. Abstract; Recently it was proproposed that neutrophils generate ozone. Evidence for the proposal was based largely on the chemistry of ozone reacting with indigo carmine to produce isatin sulfonic acid. In this investigation, we have examined the specificity of this reaction and whether it can be used as unequivocal evidence of ozone production by neutrophils. Stimulated neutrophils promoted the loss of indigo carmine. reactions of ozone and superoxide with indigo carmine are indistinguishable. We conclude that bleaching of indigo carmine cannot be used to invoke ozone production by neutrophils. Studies using indigo carmine to implicate ozone in other biological processes should also be interpreted with caution. J Biol Chem 2004 Apr 30;279(18):18521-5. Epub 2004 Feb 20

5.Pryor WA, Houk, Foote, Fukuto, Ignarro, Squadrito, Davies Free radical biology and medicine: It's a gas, man! Abstract; We review gases that can affect oxidative stress and that themselves may be radicals…It has been suggested that ozone is formed in vivo. However, the biomarkers that were used to probe for ozone reactions may be formed by non-ozone-dependent reactions. We discuss this fascinating problem in the section on ozone. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 291: R491-R511, April 20, 2006.

craig_rd

Stimulant[edit]

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

ozone therapy in intro[edit]

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)

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)

I hadn't removed all reference to ozone therapy in the article, we now have two ozone therapy sections 5.3 & 7.3. Most certainly a short reference to medical application of ozone should be in the main ozone article. I believe it should state the following, 1. history as an alternative therapy 2. but evidence base & safety questioned by orthodox medicine. 3. The FDA policy (assumed on the basis of the known toxicity of inhaling ozone) 4. research found evidence of physiolgy ozone (not confirmed) 5. ozone has in recent years been subjected to credible peer reviewed research that conflicts with FDA view. 6. a number of studies confirm when infused into whole human blood in low concentration, plasma anti oxidants quickly tame the oxidative powers of ozone and prevent any cell damage, while the defence mechanisms agains ozone damage seem to be impaired in pathogens. 7. Clinical trials of EBOO & Celacade have shown them to be useful in treating circulatory disorders, though these treatments have not yet been approved in USA or other English Speaking countries.Craig rd (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Health effects[edit]

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.

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)

Spa and Pool Ozone Question...Ground level pollution?[edit]

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)

would all depend on the design of the system, modern ozone water treatment systems are designed so that after disinfecting the water any excess ozone is converted back to oxygen. but if the system is emitting ozone either intentionally or through malfunction obviously there will be risk of exposure, There are i believe work place standards in most countries qualifying the safe level of emittion. It should be remembered that photocopiers emitt a significant amount of ozone too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.108 (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

POV in Consumer applications[edit]

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)

Several points here. First, I am Ron Long (not Ron Paul, as identified in the reference line). You did not study the study or you would have clearly seen the difference in efficacy between tapwater, involving relative levels of inactivation and time. While your note here on the talk page may explain your bias, the editing clearly creates an impression that there's some kind of snake oil going on. I did not perform these studies, Dr. Joseph Montecalvo did, sanctioned by the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Cal Poly University, San Luis Obispo. This should be changed. In fact, as soon as I can figure out how to edit it, I will.  :0) Also, the study cited has been peer reviewed by the Association of Food Technologists. -User:OzoneguruOzoneguru (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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)


The ozone layer is made up of three oxygen atoms one more than what we breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.103.157 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

References[edit]

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) <math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>[[Media: == Example.ogg ==zxczxxzczxmcla;ms;dlma == Headline text == ]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.11.32 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference 45[edit]

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)

O3 and H2O2 reaction[edit]

I had recently found a very interesting question about ozone chemistry. It asked me about the reaction between H2O2 AND O3. So, which of these three is the real one?

1) 2H2O2 + 4O3 → 2H2O + 7O2
2) H2O2 + O3 → H2O + 2O2
3) H2O2 + 3O3 → H2O + 5O2

I will put a post on my blog (http://dailychem.blogspot.com) about this topic a bit after Christmas

All of them seem perfectly normal to me. Which is the good one though? AndrewFlorea (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Equation number 3, H2O2 + 3O3 → H2O + 5O2 cannot be right because it doesn't balance. The left hand side is H2O8, whereas the right hand side is H2O11.
I couldn't find any mention of the reaction in Greenwood & Earnshaw, but there are plenty of references online, for example http://oxypure.h2o2.com/intro/chemistry.html, which gives equation number 2, H2O2 + O3 → H2O + 2O2, as the correct reaction.
Ben (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

hey guys i love ozone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.49.212 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

More Detail Required[edit]

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)

Mix Masters, et al[edit]

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)

If Ozone is O3 why does it rise to the top of the atmosphere?[edit]

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)

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)
Also, O
3
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)

ozone depletion[edit]

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)

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)

electrolytic ozone generation, generate ozone from water.[edit]

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)

Ozone in Agriculture[edit]

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.

Should we re add the referencable content?--Stone (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Health effects and environmental concentrations[edit]

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).


Catatumbo lightning ozone production: contradiction in Wikipedia[edit]

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 [6]: 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)

Ozone Health Effects?[edit]

Can i get a basic list of the health effects? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahk11 (talkcontribs) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative stability[edit]

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)

Ozone#Reactions mentions its half life in the atmosphere as approximately 0.5 h. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Somehow didn't see it in that section. David Spector (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Section 6:2 physiology context doesn't match the cited source[edit]

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)


Great article![edit]

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)

Reference to WHO in 8.2 Consumers[edit]

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)

Ozone pollution negative effects on plant life (NASA)[edit]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/ozone_garden.html

"Ground-level ozone causes more damage to plants than all other air pollutants combined." - USDA[edit]

"Ground-level ozone causes more damage to plants than all other air pollutants combined."

-- USDA

USDA

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=12462

"Effect of O3 on yield of crops" (USDA chart)[edit]

Studies by Heck, et al. found that ozone causes a substantial yield loss of several important agricultural crops. (Chart)

(USDA chart)

Note soybean, peanut, and cotton crops were reduced 35 - 45%.


Effects of Ozone Air Pollution on Plants - USDA

Impacts of ozone on trees and crops - MIT.edu

Reducing ozone damage to plants may increase global agricultural production.[edit]

Reducing ozone damage to plants may increase global agricultural production.

Shiri Avnery,* Denise L Mauzerall,*† and Arlene M Fiore‡

Increasing global agricultural production by reducing ozone damages via methane emission controls and ozone-resistant cultivar selection

Glob Chang Biol. 2013 April; 19(4): 1285–1299.

Published online 2013 February 5.

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12118

PMCID PMC3627305

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3627305/?report=classic