This theory has been taken up and developed by Baumann, who in 1881 published a paper[16] entitled “Contribution to the knowledge of Active Oxygen.” The paper begins with the statement that besides ordinary inactive oxygen and ozone there is a third modification known as active or nascent oxygen. He states that this active oxygen cannot be isolated, and its formation can only be recognized by its action on other bodies. “Active oxygen (O) is the most powerful oxidizing substance known and can unite with inactive oxygen (O_{2}) to form ozone (O_{3}). The production of ozone is always preceded by the formation of active oxygen,” but he states “active oxygen can be formed under conditions when no ozone can be formed, this is the case when easily oxidized substances are in contact with the active oxygen in such a way that the latter is completely consumed in oxidizing those substances.” “Thus, for instance, ozone is formed when oxygen is rendered active by the slow combustion of moist phosphorus in air, but no ozone is formed if the atmosphere surrounding the phosphorus contains the vapor of alcohol, ether and similar substances.” The fallacy of this reasoning becomes apparent on referring to the work of Müller[17] on the luminosity of phosphorus who shows that substances which prevent the luminosity also prevent its oxidation and if the phosphorus is not oxidized we have no reason for assuming the formation of active oxygen. He then compares active oxygen with the antozone of Schönbein and says that several of the properties of antozone can be ascribed to active oxygen above all that property of antozone of oxidizing water to hydrogen dioxide. The only difference between the two being that active oxygen has but a momentary existence while antozone was supposed to be capable of isolation.