Manual faucets induce more biofilms than electronic faucets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic faucets (types E1 and E2) and manual (M) faucets were studied for microbial quality, i.e., biomass and pathogenic microbes of biofilms in the faucet aerator, the water, and the outer surface of faucet in a hospital in Finland. Heterotrophic plate count content reflecting culturable microbial biomass and adenosine triphosphate content representing viable microbial biomass were smaller in the biofilms of E1-type electronic faucets than E2-type electronic faucets or M faucets. The likely explanation is the mixing point of cold and hot water (E1 and M: in the faucet; E2: in a separate box 50 cm before the actual faucet part). The highest amounts of Legionella (serogroups 2-15 of Legionella pneumophila) in a water sample (5000 cfu/L) and in biofilm samples (May-June 2008 sampling: 240 cfu/mL; November 2008: 1100 cfu/mL) were found in one E1-type faucet, which was lacking a back pressure valve due to faulty installation. This study reveals that certain types of electronic faucets seem to promote hospital hygiene, as they were associated with less microbial growth in biofilms in the faucet aerator, than some other types of electronic faucets or manual faucets, likely owing to the mixing point of cold and hot water. However, the faucet type had no direct effect on the presence of Legionella spp. Also correct installation is crucial.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".