Disinfectant, Soap or Probiotic Cleaning? Surface Microbiome Diversity and Biofilm Competitive Exclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extends probiotic cleaning research to a built environment. Through an eight-month cleaning trial, we compared the effect of three cleaning products (disinfectant, plain soap, and a probiotic cleaner containing a patented Bacillus spore consortium), and tap water as the control, on the resident microbiome of three common hospital surfaces (linoleum, ceramic, and stainless steel). Pathogens, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, were deposited and desiccated, and competitive exclusion was assessed for each microbiome. Cell survival was shown to be an incomplete tool for measuring microbial competitive exclusion. Biofilm competition offered a fuller understanding of competitive dynamics. A test for culturable cell survival showed that both plain soap and probiotic cleaner regimes established a surface microbiome that outcompeted the two pathogens. A different picture emerged when observing biofilms with a deposited and desiccated GFP-labeled pathogen, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Competitive exclusion was again demonstrated. On surfaces cleaned with disinfectant the pathogen outcompeted the microbiomes. On surfaces cleaned with plain soap, the microbiomes outcompeted the pathogen. However, on surfaces cleaned with probiotic cleaner, despite the exponentially higher surface microbial loads, the microbiome did not completely outcompete the pathogen. Thus, the standard culturable cell test for survival on a surface confirmed the competitive advantage that is typically reported for probiotic cleaners. However, observation of competition in biofilms showed that the more diverse microbiome (according to alpha and beta indices) established on a surface cleaned with plain soap had a better competitive advantage than the monoculture established by the probiotic cleaner. Therefore, microbial diversity appears to be as critical to the competitive exclusion principle as cell numbers. The study showed that both plain soap and probiotic cleaner fostered competitive exclusion far more effectively than disinfectant. Probiotic cleaners with microbial diversity could be worth considering for hospital cleaning.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".