Potential Repair of <i>Escherichia coli</i> DNA following Exposure to UV Radiation from Both Medium- and Low-Pressure UV Sources Used in Drinking Water Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased use of UV radiation as a drinking water treatment technology has instigated studies of the repair potential of microorganisms following treatment. This study challenged the repair potential of an optimally grown nonpathogenic laboratory strain of Escherichia coli after UV radiation from low- and medium-pressure lamps. Samples were irradiated with doses of 5, 8, and 10 mJ/cm(2) from a low-pressure lamp and 3, 5, 8, and 10 mJ/cm(2) from a medium-pressure UV lamp housed in a bench-scale collimated beam apparatus. Following irradiation, samples were incubated at 37 degrees C under photoreactivating light or in the dark. Sample aliquots were analyzed for up to 4 h following incubation using a standard plate count. Results of this study showed that E. coli underwent photorepair following exposure to the low-pressure UV source, but no repair was detectable following exposure to the medium-pressure UV source at the initial doses examined. Minimal repair was eventually observed upon medium-pressure UV lamp exposure when doses were lowered to 3 mJ/cm(2). This study clearly indicates differences in repair potential under laboratory conditions between irradiation from low-pressure and medium-pressure UV sources of the type used in water treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".