Quantifying ultraviolet inactivation kinetics in nearly opaque fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of ultraviolet light for inactivation of pathogens is an engrained, low-cost, eco-friendly method for disinfection of nearly transparent (UVT254 > 30%/cm) contaminated fluids for which a standard-collimated beam apparatus is typically used for measurement of intrinsic inactivation kinetics. However, such a device cannot be used for low ultraviolet transmittance (UVT254 < 30%/cm) and nearly opaque (UVT254 < 10%/cm) fluids because of the lack of sufficient mixing and intrinsic inactivation kinetics controlled by dose distribution and mass-transfer effects. In this paper, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was used to determine the validity regime for accurate ultraviolet inactivation kinetics studies in low transmittance and nearly opaque fluids when a new Taylor–Couette collimated beam apparatus, which exploits flow instability through the formation of toroidal counter-rotating vortices, is used for irradiations. A Taylor number of ∼ 46,500 was sufficient to overcome the very short UV light penetration at UVT254 ∼ 0.001%/cm as long as the log10 reduction value was used as controlling parameter. Specifically, it was identified that, in case of first-order inactivation kinetics, the applied average dose (AD) should not be higher than three times the dose required for one log10 inactivation (also known as D10) in order to generate data for accurate kinetic studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".