Comparison of the Disinfection Effects of Vacuum‐UV (VUV) and UV Light on <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> Spores in Aqueous Suspensions at 172, 222 and 254 nm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of UV and vacuum-UV (VUV) disinfection of Bacillus subtilis spores in aqueous suspensions at wavelengths of 172, 222 and 254 nm was evaluated. A Xe(2)* excilamp, a KrCl* excilamp and a low-pressure mercury lamp were used as almost monochromatic light sources at these three wavelengths. The first-order inactivation rate constants at 172, 222 and 254 nm were 0.0023, 0.122 and 0.069 cm(2) mJ(-1), respectively. Therefore, a 2 log reduction of B. subtilis spores was reached with fluences (UV doses) of 870, 21.6 and 40.4 mJ cm(-2) at these individual wavelengths. Consequently, for the inactivation of B. subtilis spores, VUV exposure at 172 nm is much less efficient than exposure at the other two wavelengths, while exposure at 222 nm is more efficient than that at 254 nm, which is probably because triplet energy transfer from DPA to thymine bases at 222 nm is higher than that at 254 nm. This research indicated quantitatively that VUV light is not practicable for microorganism disinfection in water and wastewater treatment. However, in comparison with other advanced oxidation processes (e.g. UV/TiO(2), UV/H(2)O(2) or O(3)/H(2)O(2)) the VUV-initiated photolysis of water is likely more efficient in generating hydroxyl radicals and more effective for the inactivation of microorganisms.
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.
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 it