[at-l] Where germs live

[jbryankramer at msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

It is the final concentration the matters, not the concentration of the
concentrated product. Clorox is 6.25% hypochlorite IIRC or 62500 parts per
million (ppm), to get good disinfection you need to get about 1-10 ppm in
the water you are disinfecting, the higher the concentration the more
quickly it works.

Commercial grade hypochlorite is 12.5%, I know we buy it 1500 gallons at a
time. So there isn't that much difference. You could use gasious chlorine
but there is a move away from that because of evacuation regulations in the
case of a leak. For a ton cylinder of chlorine you have to evacuate an area
five miles downwind of the cylinder. So many plants have switched over to
hypochlorite or other products. We did.

The reason that the 12.5% is not widely available is that it is not very
stable, a tank full is only good for months, it starts degrading the day it
is made.

Bryan

"Si vis pacem para bellum"


> Several years ago I read an article that said chlorine bleach was
> a poor to
> bad treatment.  The reason being that the concentration of the
> disinfecting
> ingredient in CLOROX, etc. was much less than what was used by towns and
> cities for disinfecting water.  And that most people could not buy
> reasonable amounts of the city grade chlorine at a reasonable price: Plus
> today with terrorism, I suspect if you could buy it, you'd get a knock on
> the door from the FBI.  Chlorine would make an excellent
> bio-terror weapon.*
>
> William, The Turtle
>
> *	JIC you did not see it in some other message: I once made up a
> cleaning chemical to use on a really groddy place in the store I
> worked at.
> I had learned, from an expert, how to do it.  But it could only be made in
> very small and weak batches.  Only I got called to the front for something
> else.  Some stockmen were put on the cleaning detail.  They had seen me
> making the chemical.  So, they dumped several bottles into the bucket.  We
> had to immediately evacuate the back of the store and almost had
> to evacuate
> the whole store.  I spent over two hours flushing the chemicals
> down and out
> of the store drains and constantly soaking the spot outside where I dumped
> it.  I think I got some minor damage from it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W F Thorneloe [mailto:thornel@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 6:46 AM
> To: jmayer@rochester.rr.com
> Cc: at-l
> Subject: [at-l] Where germs live
>
>
> There is no real problem with any of the chemical treatments,
> other than the lack of efficacy demonstrated with chlorine /
> bleach. Biofilms have been a significant problem with many
> filters, especially inline filters. The design of some allow
> boiling the filter to reduce blockage by the film. I'd not
> consider this with the bulk of paper filters, which do not use
> chemical "backups" unless marketed as water purifiers. I'd be a
> bit concerned about the stability of paper filters recurrently
> exposed to bleaching agents.
>
> Hence, one might consider scalding bottles and other equipment
> from time to time, assuming you felt that the time and fuel
> costs were reasonable. There is still idea that other hygiene
> practices have more direct benefit to the hiker and companions.
>
> Sanitation is only relative in the backcountry.
>
> OrangeBug
>
> *******Jim wrote:
> > I suspect that using a chemical disinfectant such as Aqua
> > Mira, iodine, or even chlorine once every day or so IN
> > ADDITION to filtering would be effective in preventing a
> > biofilm buildup.  One wouldn't use the chemical stuff all
> > the time... just once a day in camp.
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>