Activity of an Alcohol-Based Hand Gel Against Human Adeno-, Rhino-, and Rotaviruses Using the Fingerpad Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the activity against three non-enveloped viruses (an adeno-, a rhino- and a rotavirus) of a gel containing 60% ethanol, using experimentally contaminated thumb- and fingerpads of 12 panelists, as per standard procedure E-1838-96 of the American Society of Testing and Materials. DESIGN: Each digit received 10 microL of the test virus suspension. The inoculum from the thumbs was eluted immediately with 990 microL of Earle's balanced salt solution (EBSS) to assess the amount of virus on each digit (0-minute control). The inoculum on the fingers was allowed to dry (20-25 minutes), and virus was eluted from two fingerpads to determine the loss in virus infectivity upon drying (baseline titer). Then the dried inoculum on randomly selected fingers was exposed to 1 mL of the test product or standard hard water (200-ppm calcium carbonate) for 20 seconds. The virus remaining was eluted with 1 mL of EBSS, titrated to determine the amounts eliminated, and compared to the baseline titer. RESULTS: Each digit received at least 10(4) plaque-forming units of virus in 10 microL. The amounts of adeno-, rhino-, and rotaviruses surviving the drying were 30%, 75%, and 42%, respectively. The product reduced the infectivity titers of the three viruses by 3 to >4 log10 when compared to a reduction of < or =1 log10 for the hard-water rinse. CONCLUSION: The level of virus reduction by gel was statistically significantly higher than that seen with the water control. Evidence for such activity against non-enveloped viruses supports further investigation of the benefits of this product.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".