Comparison of efficacy profiles for minimum lethal concentrations (MLCs) of some commonly used commercial hospital microbicidal detergent-disinfectant products for disinfectants and sporicidal activity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to evaluate and control the potential hazard and inherent risk of environmental transmission and spread of nosocomial infections by contact with hitherto “non-critical” inanimate/environmental surfaces in the hospital and healthcare facilities (commode, bed, bowl of toilet etc.), the microbicidal efficacies of six disinfectants products commonly used in local hospital facilities was tested. the commercially available detergent-disinfectants (one chlorine-based, one phenol-based, two quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), generation 3 and generation 4 and, two hydrogen peroxide-based) were evaluated at different concentrations using use-dilution method for evaluating the minimum lethal concentrations (MLCs). Results from these in vitro germicidal exposure experiments indicate that all six disinfectants tested were at the MLCs of these disinfectants in proportion to the recommended strengths varied significantly and yielded very different performance values for different test strains. This knowledge could prove to be of significance in assessing the risks associated with the use, and the incidental failure thereof, of different disinfectants used in the healthcare facilities. the results from our study highlight differences in the activity of germicides against different bacterial strains. these results indicate that the choice of disinfectant agents and the hospital decontamination protocols can markedly affect the prevalence and environmental distribution of pathogens and that this could be better managed if a proper assessment of the risk associated with the use of disinfectants at off-recommended strengths conditions is taken into account in providing guidance towards and seeking satisfactory resolutions to the incidence of breach of manufacturers’ recommendations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".