MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177119111 · doi:10.1002/jbio.202100135

Modeling the efficiency of <scp>UV</scp> at 254 nm for disinfecting the different layers within <scp>N95</scp> respirators

2021· article· en· W3177119111 on OpenAlexaff
Abdallatif Satti Abdalrhman, Chengjin Wang, Angelica Manalac, Madrigal Weersink, Abdul‐Amir Yassine, Vaughn Betz, Benoît Barbeau, Lothar Lilge, Ron Hofmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biophotonics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratorChemistryMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study presented a Monte Carlo simulation of light transport in eight commonly used filtered facepiece respirators (FFRs) to assess the efficacy of UV at 254 nm for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2. The results showed different fluence rates across the thickness of the eight different FFRs, implying that some FFR models may be more treatable than others, with the following order being (from most to least treatable): models 1512, 9105s, 1805, 9210, 1870+, 8210, 8110s and 1860, for single side illumination. The model predictions did not coincide well with some previously reported experimental data on virus inactivation when applied to FFR surfaces. The simulations predicted that FFRs should experience higher log reductions (>>6-log) than those observed experimentally (often limited to ~5-log). Possible explanations are virus shielding by aggregation or soiling, and a lack of the Monte Carlo simulations considering near-field scattering effects that can create small, localized regions of low UV photon probability on the surface of the fiber material. If the latter is the main cause in limiting practical UV viral decontamination, improvement might be achieved by exposing the FFR to UV isotropically from all directions, such as by varying the UV source to the FFR surface angle during treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiophotonicsSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207