Mechanisms and efficacy of disinfection in ceramic water filters: A critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diarrheal illnesses claim the lives of hundreds of thousands of children each year, most of whom live in rural and low-income communities. Ceramic Water Filters (CWF) are widely regarded as one water treatment technology with the potential to increase access to safe drinking water. While physical filtration mechanisms are a key contributor to improving the water safety, silver is commonly added to improve disinfection performance. Therefore, a thorough review of silver disinfection efficacy and disinfection mechanisms in relation to CWFs are critically important. This paper reviews filter mechanisms and efficacy for bacteria removal for cases with and without silver addition. Method of silver application (dipping, painting, or co-firing) is assessed. Silver release and retention is discussed. The findings from this paper illustrate that eluted silver contributes to filter bacterial disinfection. However, more research is needed on the impact of silver on preventing a “slime layer” on the filter surface and receptacle. Silver application method, water quality and particle characteristics were demonstrated to impact release. For instance, co-firing results in the most consistent elution over time but at lower concentrations than other methods. Finally, research into alternative metals to silver for enhanced disinfection present emerging opportunities within the CWF field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".