Comparative study from a chemical perspective of two- and three-step disinfection techniques to control Clostridium difficile spores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around the world, the presence of Clostridium difficile in hospital environments remains a great concern. to control the spread of this gram-positive bacterium requires a better understanding of the various chemical interactions between the components of the bacterium and the surfaces to be cleaned. the objective of the present study was to compare, from a chemical perspective, two surface disinfection techniques and the use of two dilutions (1/20 and 1/10) of a 5% sodium hypochlorite solution. the following two cleaning-disinfection procedures were used: first, a two-step technique consisting of the use of a detergent-disinfectant (thirdgeneration quaternary ammonium) followed by 5% household sodium hypochlorite; and second, a three-step technique consisting of the above steps plus a water rinse step between the detergent-disinfectant step and the disinfection product step. the results of the study show that the three-step technique with a 1/10 dilution of 5% sodium hypochlorite solution creates a chemical environment that provides greater disinfection potential compared to the two-step technique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".