Microbiological consequences of indoor composting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recycling of organic waste appeals to more and more people. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microbiological contamination around organic waste bins at three distances over a 12-month period. Contamination near the customary trash of control households was evaluated at the beginning to ensure that there is no recruitment bias. Air samples using the MAS 100 impactor were carried out in 38 dwellings that do household waste composting and in 10 dwellings of controls. Collection of particles by CIP 10 rotating cup sampler and dust samples collected by electrostatic dust collector cloths were acquired in dwellings that do household waste composting. Samples were analyzed by culture and by real-time quantitative PCR. Information about dwelling characteristics and inhabitant practices was obtained by a standardized questionnaire. The genera most often isolated were Penicillium, Aspergillus, Cladosporium and Streptomyces. Near the organic waste bins, bioaerosol samples showed an increase of Acarus siro (P = 0.001). Sedimented dust analyses highlighted an increase of A. siro, Wallemia sebi, Aspergillus versicolor, and Cladosporium sphaerospermum concentrations after a 12-month survey compared to the beginning. Composting favors microorganism development over time, but does not seem to have an effect on the bioaerosol levels and the surface microbiota beyond 0.5 m from the waste bin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".