Packaging materials for plasma sterilization with the flowing afterglow of an N<sub>2</sub>–O<sub>2</sub> discharge: damage assessment and inactivation efficiency of enclosed bacterial spores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conventional sterilization methods (steam, ozone, gaseous chemicals), after their proper cleaning, medical devices are wrapped/enclosed in adequate packaging materials, then closed/sealed before initiating the sterilization process: these packaging materials thus need to be porous. Gaseous plasma sterilization being still under development, evaluation and comparison of packaging materials have not yet been reported in the literature. To this end, we have subjected various porous packagings used with conventional sterilization systems to the N 2 –O 2 flowing afterglow and also a non-porous one to evaluate and compare their characteristics towards the inactivation of B. atrophaeus endospores deposited on a Petri dish and enclosed in such packagings. Because the sterilization process with the N 2 –O 2 discharge afterglow is conducted under reduced-pressure conditions, non-porous pouches can be sealed only after returning to atmospheric pressure. All the tests were therefore conducted with one end of the packaging freely opened, post-sealing being required. The features of these packaging materials, namely mass loss, resistance, toxicity to human cells as well as some characteristics specific to the plasma method used such as ultraviolet transparency, were examined before and after exposure to the flowing afterglow. All of our results show that the non-porous packaging considered is much more suitable than the conventionally used porous ones as far as ensuring an efficient and low-damage sterilization process with an N 2 –O 2 plasma-afterglow is concerned.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".