Implications of paper vs stainless steel biological indicator substrates for formaldehyde gas decontamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of biological indicators currently being employed during formaldehyde decontamination. Data suggest that detectable amounts of formaldehyde are absorbed into the paper strips contained in currently used biological indicators. Absorbed formaldehyde has the potential to inhibit the growth of indicator spores, thus leading to false negative results. Indicators composed of either stainless steel carriers or paper strips were investigated to determine whether stainless steel carriers can be used as an alternative to paper strip indicators. METHODS AND RESULTS: Biological indicators were exposed to formaldehyde gas and were tested for the presence of formaldehyde and any possible inhibition of spore growth. Absorbed formaldehyde was detected in the paper strip carriers while no formaldehyde was detected from any of the stainless steel carriers. Exposed paper strips were found to inhibit growth of up to 1 × 10(6) spores while the stainless steel carriers did not inhibit the growth of spores. CONCLUSIONS: During decontamination, biological indicators composed of paper spore strips absorb formaldehyde and inhibit growth of any surviving spores. Stainless steel carriers do not absorb formaldehyde and are an ideal alternative substrate for biological indicators. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The popular paper strip biological indicator can lead to false negative results during decontamination and is unsuitable for validating formaldehyde decontamination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".