Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T18:36:34.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of saline on the eye irritation caused by swimming-pool water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Ragnar Rylander
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Hygiene, Karolinska Institute, and National Environment Protection Board, Stockholm, Sweden
Katarina Victorin
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Hygiene, Karolinska Institute, and National Environment Protection Board, Stockholm, Sweden
Stefan Sörensen
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Hygiene, Karolinska Institute, and National Environment Protection Board, Stockholm, Sweden
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In laboratory experiments the acute eye irritation produced by exposure to tap water was not significantly increased when chlorine compounds were added to the water at concentrations of 1 mg./l. The greatest irritation was produced by 2 mg. Cl2/1. as NH2C1. The addition of NaCl at concentrations above about 0·5% abolished the irritant effect of tap water, and prevented irritation even when 1 mg. Cl2/1. was present.

In a field experiment involving two swimming baths, one with fresh and the other with saline water (0·5 % NaCl), eye irritation in the saline bath was significantly lower than in the freshwater bath only when the swimming time did not exceed 30 min.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

References

REFERENCES

Mood, E. W., Clarke, C. C. & Gelperin, A. (1951). The effect of available residual chlorine and hydrogen ion concentration upon the eyes of swimmers. American Journal of Hygiene 54, 144–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Schein, H. L., Tammelin, L.-E. & Zetterström, B. (1951). ‘Irritation of the eyes in swimming-pools. (In Swedish English abstract.) Nordisk Hygienisk Tidskrift, 05 1951, pp. 112–25.Google Scholar