MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Solar and Nonsolar Inactivation Rates of Airborne Bacteria

2005· article· en· W2082912702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Paez-Rubio, Jordan Peccia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioaerosolAerosolizationBacteriaAerosolRelative humidityEnvironmental scienceIndoor bioaerosolEnvironmental chemistryEscherichia coliChemistryIndicator bacteriaMicrobiologyEnvironmental engineeringBiologyMeteorologyEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land application of biosolids is a wide spread practice in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Given the potential for biosolid aerosolization during land application, both solar and nonsolar induced inactivation rate information is needed to more accurately predict the fate of bacteria in air. Pilot-scale bioaerosol reactor experiments that independently measure the solar and nonsolar (absence of solar radiation) inactivation rates of airborne Mycobacterium parafortuitum and Escherichia coli were performed. Direct fluorescent microscopy measurements for total airborne bacteria and culture-based assays were used to measure concentrations in a 1m3 aerosol reactor that was transparent to UV-A and UV-B wavelengths, and to produce decay curves of airborne bacteria under moderate (50–60%) and high (85–95%) levels of relative humidity (RH). E. coli was more susceptible to airborne decay than M. parafortuitum at all RH levels tested. RH strongly influenced solar and nonsolar airborne inactivation rates in both bacteria. These inactivation rates for both bacteria were greatest at moderate RH levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental EngineeringSame topicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureFrench-language works237,207