Pilot Study Comparing the Efficacy of Two Cleaning Techniques in Reducing Environmental Contamination with Cyclophosphamide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy of the cleaning technique usually employed in our healthcare facility to eliminate environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide with that of the Surface Safe commercial kit. METHODS: This is a three-step evaluative and comparative study involving: (i) the voluntary contamination of the surface of a hood with a pre-established quantity of cyclophosphamide (20,000,000 ng), (ii) the cleaning of the work surface of the hood using a cleaning technique usually employed in our healthcare facility or that of the product Surface Safe, and (iii) the quantification of cyclophosphamide detected on the work surface. The usual cleaning technique involves the use of a mixture of 0.05% chlorhexidine and 70% ethyl alcohol to clean surfaces, whereas the product Surface Safe involves a combined two-step sodium hypochlorite and sodium thiosulfate wash. RESULTS: The median concentrations of cyclophosphamide detected after the use of the usual technique and the product Surface Safe came to 165 ng cm(-2) (40-570) and 65 ng cm(-2) (57-110), respectively. The results obtained showed an average 99.5% efficacy in reducing the quantity of cyclophosphamide (ng) detected on the work surface for each of the two techniques that were evaluated. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that reducing the residual concentration of cyclophosphamide on work surfaces to levels lower than 1 ng cm(-2) remains difficult despite the use of cleaning techniques with a high percentage of efficacy. It stressed the importance of combining two successive cleaning techniques to maximally restrict the residual concentration of hazardous drugs and suggests the use of a combination of sodium hypochlorite and sodium thiosulfate to best reduce environmental contamination 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".