MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531504124 · doi:10.1177/153567601101600207

A Study of the Effectiveness of the Containment Level-4 (CL-4) Chemical Shower in Decontaminating Dover Positive-Pressure Suits

2011· article· en· W2531504124 on OpenAlex
Natasha Klaponski, Todd Cutts, Diane Gordon, Steven Theriault

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Biosafety · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsShowerHuman decontaminationPurgePersonal protective equipmentPositive controlContainment (computer programming)Waste managementChemistryToxicologyMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EngineeringBiologyTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The decontamination or physical removal of contaminants from personal protective equipment upon exit from high containment laboratories is crucial to maintain containment and safety of laboratory workers. The current methodology for exiting from high-containment level 4 (CL-4) laboratory calls for laboratory personnel to decontaminate their worn positive pressure suits via “mechanical washing” during a 5-minute chemical/water rinse cycle. This study was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the current shower methodology and to test the efficacy of the physical removal of any contaminants from the positive pressure suits following the application of water alone and of a milder detergent. Method: Brushed stainless steel test carriers were inoculated with Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV), a surrogate for filoviruses, and a soil load based on mucin, tryptone, and bovine serum albumen (BSA) to mimic serum. The virus mixture was then dried and secured with magnets onto a pre-washed Dover positive pressure suit. The suit was subjected to varying shower cycles, and once complete, carriers were removed and further analyzed. Any remaining virus was quantified using a TCID50 assay on Vero E6 cells showing cytopathic effects after 3–5 days. Three positive control carriers with dried inoculum were left untreated by the shower cycle, and negative control carriers (no inoculum) were also included on the suit during shower testing and analyzed alongside the test carriers. Results: No residual virus was detected using the TCID50 method following the normal shower cycle (2-minute chemical wash and 3-minute water rinse). Shower cycles consisting of 5 minutes of water-only rinses were equally as effective in removing virus from the suit. Cycles consisting of only a 1-minute water rinse showed a 5.5 log decrease from an average initial 6 log viral concentration. Varying time points between 1 and 5 minutes were evaluated during the normal shower cycle as well as varying concentrations of chemical disinfectant. Conclusion: The current chemical shower protocol is effective in removing all virus from the Dover positive pressure suits worn in high-containment laboratories. However, data show that reducing the need for a high-level decontamination chemical and using any surfactant carries the same effectiveness as the current protocol used, which would serve as a more cost-effective and eco-friendly alternative to the currently implemented shower protocol.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it