MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991668028 · doi:10.1177/1535676019890975

Decontamination Validation of a Class II Type A2 Biosafety Cabinet during Laboratory Fumigation

2019· article· en· W2991668028 on OpenAlexaff
Greg Frey, Cathy Robertson, Jay Krishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Biosafety · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosafetyHuman decontaminationFumigationPeracetic acidHEPAWaste managementCabinet (room)Hydrogen peroxideToxicologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBiotechnologyChemistryBiologyElectrical engineeringHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a Class II type A2 biosafety cabinet in a laboratory could be decontaminated while the laboratory was being fumigated using vaporous hydrogen peroxide or peracetic acid dry fogging. Methods: To validate decontamination of all parts of the biosafety cabinet, biological indicators were placed at various locations within the biosafety cabinet, including between the pleats of supply and exhaust HEPA filters. To assess whether the operational status of the biosafety cabinet influenced the outcome of its decontamination, fumigation validations were undertaken with the cabinet running and not running. The amount of fumigant and the duration of fumigation remained constant whether the biosafety cabinet was running or not. Discussion: Biosafety cabinet decontamination was successful only when the cabinet was running to facilitate the fumigant's circulation within the plenums and across the HEPA filters. This study shows both vaporous hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid dry fogging can be used successfully to decontaminate Class II type A2 biosafety cabinets during laboratory fumigation, provided the biosafety cabinets are operational and running during the fumigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied BiosafetySame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207