Comparison of the role of attachment, aggregation and internalisation of microorganisms in UVC and UVA (solar) disinfection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this comparative study, the impact of two microbial protective mechanisms against simulated UVA disinfection was assessed by using protocols previously developed for UVC disinfection assays. (i) The impact of natural microorganism aggregation and attachment to particles was assessed by targeting total coliform bacteria in natural surface water samples. (ii) The impact of bacteria internalisation by zooplankton was assessed by using C. elegans nematodes as a model host and E. coli as a bacterial target for UVA inactivation. Dispersion of natural aggregates by blending prior to UVA exposure was shown to enhance the inactivation rate of total coliforms as compared to untreated raw water. Removal of particles by an 8-microm membrane filtration did not improve UVA disinfection efficiency. Twenty-four per cent of the highest applied UVA fluence was found to reach internalised E. coli in nematodes. Both aggregation and internalisation showed similar impact as protective mechanisms against UVA and UVC bacterial inactivation.
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".