Ozone treatment in a wind tunnel for the reduction of airborne viruses in swine buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ozone is effective against bacteria and viruses although its influence over bioaerosols is understudied and could be useful particularly in agricultural buildings such as swine confinement buildings. Ozone treatment of air within ventilation plenum could be applied for biosecurity purposes during the quarantine of incoming animals. In this study, a bacteriophage (PhiX174) was used as a surrogate for eukaryotic viruses in nebulization experiments inside a wind tunnel to study the factors that affect ozone’s efficacy to reduce the virus. A tunnel system was installed in the workshop of a swine building with controlled relative humidity (40% and 80%), ozone concentration (0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, and 1.8 ppm), and exposure time (up to approximately 6 min) of PhiX174 nebulized. Although there was no effect of ozone on phage genomes, culturable phages were inactivated. There was a reduction of PhiX174 infectious ratios with increasing ozone concentrations and stronger effects of ozone observed at 80% relative humidity. The data suggests the potential success of a wind tunnel and ozone air treatment to control infectious viruses emitted from swine barns or quarantine buildings.Copyright © 2020 American Association for Aerosol Research
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".