Comparison of 2 ultrafiltration systems for the concentration of seeded viruses from environmental waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of ultrafiltration as a concentration method to recover viruses from environmental waters was investigated. Two ultrafiltration systems (hollow fiber and tangential flow) in a large- (100 L) and small-scale (2 L) configuration were able to recover greater than 50% of multiple viruses (bacteriophage PP7 and T1 and poliovirus type 2) from varying water turbidities (10-157 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)) simultaneously. Mean recoveries (n = 3) in ground and surface water by the large-scale hollow fiber ultrafiltration system (100 L) were comparable to recoveries observed in the small-scale system (2 L). Recovery of seeded viruses in highly turbid waters from small-scale tangential flow (2 L) (screen and open channel) and hollow fiber ultrafilters (2 L) (small pilot) were greater than 70%. Clogging occurred in the hollow fiber pencil module and when particulate concentrations exceeded 1.6 g/L and 5.5 g/L (dry mass) in the screen and open channel filters, respectively. The small pilot module was able to filter all concentrates without clogging. The small pilot hollow fiber ultrafilter was used to test recovery of seeded viruses from surface waters from different geographical regions in 10-L volumes. Recoveries >70% were observed from all locations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".