Evaluation of Bacterial Contamination and Control Methods in Soluble Metalworking Fluids
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the United States, 1.2 million workers are exposed to metalworking fluids. During operations, aerosols are produced and airborne contaminants can be inhaled. Although biocides are used to control the bacterial content of metalworking fluids, they can create health-related problems, and their efficiency remains to be proved. The objectives of this project were (1) to verify whether rigorous cleaning according to a standard protocol could reduce microbial contamination and (2) whether the use of biocides with different spectra could reduce the bacterial population. Four similar machines producing similar components were evaluated; a specific treatment was applied to each machine. The machine used as a control (1) was thoroughly cleaned prior to sampling, (2) did not undergo any major cleaning afterward, and (3) was operated without the use of any biocide. A major cleaning is a protocol described and recommended by the fluid manufacturer and was performed on the three other machines, two of which were subsequently treated with biocides weekly. Fluid samples from the four lathes were collected weekly during a 6-month period, and total bacterial and cultivable Gram-negative bacteria were analyzed for each sample. Major cleaning of the machines (120-4) did not significantly reduce the concentration of bacteria in the cutting fluids when compared with the control machine (120-3), which had not undergone major cleaning. The concentrations of total bacteria were in the 10(6) CFU/mL range for these two lathes; however, a reduction in the total number of fluid changes was observed for this machine. Bacterial flora in the cutting fluids was significantly controlled with the use of biocides. Bacteria concentrations were in the 10(3)-10(5) CFU/mL range for the lathes with the use of biocides. Since thorough cleaning is insufficient and biocides are recognized as being responsible for some worker health problems, other avenues for controlling bacterial flora in cutting fluids should be evaluated to reduce worker exposure to their bacterial contaminants.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».