Comparison between Flow Cytometry and Traditional Culture Methods for Efficacy Assessment of Six Disinfectant Agents against Nosocomial Bacterial Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was undertaken to compare the use of flow cytometry (FCM) with the standard culture-based microbiology method to assess the efficacy of six disinfectants used in Quebec hospitals including: two quaternary ammonium-based, two activated hydrogen peroxide-based, one phenol-based and one sodium hypochlorite-based. Four nosocomial bacterial species, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci faecalis, were exposed to minimum lethal concentrations (MLCs) and sublethal concentrations (1/2 MLCs) of disinfectants under study. The results showed a strong correlation between the two techniques for the presence of dead and live cell populations, as well as, evidence of injured populations with the FCM. The only exception was observed with sodium hypochlorite at higher concentrations where fluorescence was diminished and underestimating dead cell population. The results also showed that FCM can replace traditional microbiological methods to study disinfectant efficacy on bacteria. Furthermore, FCM profiles for E. coli and E. faecalis cells exposed to sublethal concentrations exhibited distinct populations of injured cells, opening a new aspect for future research and investigation to elucidate the role of injured, culturable/noncuturable/resuscitable cell populations in infection control.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".