Data for comparison of chlorine dioxide and chlorine disinfection power in a real dairy wastewater effluent

Akhlaghi, Maliheh; Dorost, Amin; Karimyan, Kamaladdin; Narooie, M.R.; Sharafi, Hooshmand

doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.03.117

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fifteen articles discussed the impact of water disinfection using chlorine dioxide, with 3 focusing on wastewater disinfection, 4 detailing drinking water disinfection, and 8 informing on water disinfection in general. The articles obtained for wastewater disinfection were published by Zhong et al , Akhlaghi et al , and Alcalde et al in 2019, 2018, and 2007, respectively [ 24 , 29 , 30 ]. Zhong et al explained disinfection by-products (DBPs) in wastewater effluents treated by chlorine dioxide [ 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhong et al explained disinfection by-products (DBPs) in wastewater effluents treated by chlorine dioxide [ 24 ]. Akhlaghi et al compared data of chlorine dioxide and chlorine disinfectant in wastewater effluent, while Alcalde et al gave information on wastewater reclamation systems that use chlorine dioxide to disinfect water [ 29 , 30 ]. The articles for drinking water disinfection were published by Lin et al , Sorlini et al , Lenes et al , and Wondergem and van Dijk-Looijard in 2014, 2010, and 1991, [ 31 – 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies on chlorine dioxide on wastewater effluents generally reported a positive impact. This positive impact was based on the importance of chlorine dioxide in the water treatment of wastewater as using only chlorine as a disinfectant for water treatment is insufficient [ 24 , 29 , 35 , 39 , 42 ]. This supports the use of chlorine dioxide owing to its higher efficacy compared to chlorine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review on chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously increased the production and sales of disinfectants. This study aimed to systematically review and analyze the efficacy and safety of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. The literature relating to the use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant was systematically reviewed in January 2021 using databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were studies that investigated the use of chlorine dioxide to assess the efficacy, safety, and impact of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Out of the 33 included studies, 14 studies focused on the disinfectant efficacy of chlorine dioxide, 8 studies expounded on the safety and toxicity in humans and animals, and 15 studies discussed the impact, such as water treatment disinfection using chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide is a safe and effective disinfectant, even at concentrations as low as 20 to 30 mg/L. Moreover, the efficacy of chlorine dioxide is mostly independent of pH. Chlorine dioxide can be effectively used to disinfect drinking water without much alteration of palatability and can also be used to destroy pathogenic microbes, including viruses, bacteria, and fungi from vegetables and fruits. Our review confirms that chlorine dioxide is effective against the resistant Mycobacterium, H1N1, and other influenza viruses. Studies generally support the use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. The concentration deemed safe for usage still needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review on chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Найдешевшою і найпоширенішою дезінфікувальною речовиною, яку широко використовують в Україні та за її межами під час дезінфекції як доїльного, так і молочного обладнання, є розчин кальцинованої соди [1].…”

unclassified

“…Контролем якості дезінфекції слугував 0,5 % розчин кальцинованої соди. Робочі розчини дезінфектантів упродовж 15 хв прокачували через доїльне обладнання за допомогою вакуумної установки[1].Досліджували якість дезінфекції, порівнюючи їх дезінфікувальні властивості між собою та у порівнянні з 0,5 % розчином кальцинованої соди. Робочі 0,5 % розчини, упродовж 15 хвилин прокачували за допомогою вакуумної установки.…”

unclassified

Comparative characteristics of disinfectants for dairy equipment and quality of dairy products under the influence of paratypical environmental factors

Gryshko,

Andriychuk,

Zotsenko

et al. 2023

Tehnologìâ virobnictva ì pererobki produktìv tvarinnictva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The parameters of the microclimate of the barn under the untethered method of keeping cows in the spring were studied. It was found that the temperature in the barn was on average 8.8±1.34 °C, the relative humidity and air velocity in the compared rooms were within the limits of hygienic standards. Microbiological indicators of bacterial air contamination correspond to the upper limits of hygienic standards and amounted to 116.64±6.32 CFU/sс3. The bacterial contamination of technological equipment averaged 119.33±14.71 thousand CFU/sc3. The content of harmful gases in the premises did not exceed the permissible sanitary and hygienic standards and was within the limits of the standards of VNTP-APC-01.05 Livestock enterprises (complexes, farms, small farms). The average number of MAFANM in the flushes from the study objects (teat rubber, collector, milk hose, milk pipeline) after washing with water was 368.4±9.8 thousand CFU/ sс3, and with 0.5% soda ash solution - 249.0±11.7 thousand CFU/sс3. The best level of microbiological cleanliness of the internal surfaces of dairy equipment was provided by sanitization using the disinfectant "Perfo Grif", with the number of MAFANM in the flushes averaging 139.7±7.0 thousand CFU/sс3. The best indicators of microbiological cleanliness of dairy equipment were obtained during sanitization with 0.5% Higienic-K solution. The average number of MAFANM was 126.2±1.5 thousand CFU/sс3. When using a solution of soda ash for sanitizing dairy equipment, the amount of MAFANM in freshly milked milk taken from the cooler was 198.3±12.16 thousand CFU/ sс3, which corresponds to the first grade according to DSTU 3362:2018 "Cow's milk". Technical conditions. At the same time, during the sanitization of equipment with acidic detergents and disinfectants "Perfo Grif" and "Higienic-K", the amount of MAFANM in milk was 114±8.14 and 102.0±16.3 thousand CFU/sс3, respectively, which corresponds to the highest grade. At the same time, the BCCP titer was more than 1.0, and the number of somatic cells (SCC) was within the permissible range (400 thousand/ml). Therefore, for effective sanitary and hygienic treatment of milking equipment, working solutions of disinfectants based on peracetic, nitric and phosphoric acids should contain 0.5% of the active ingredient, which will ensure the destruction of microorganisms during exposure for 5 – 15 minutes. Key words: dairy equipment, dairy products, disinfection, milk production hygiene, microbiological indicators of milk, milk production technology, milk quality.

show abstract