MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184330640 · doi:10.1017/qrd.2021.6

Effect of relative humidity on hydrogen peroxide production in water droplets

2021· article· en· W3184330640 on OpenAlexaff
Maria T. Dulay, Carlos Alberto Huerta‐Aguilar, Christian F. Chamberlayne, Richard N. Zare, Adriaan Davidse, Siniša Vukovič

Bibliographic record

VenueQRB Discovery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)Cascades (Canada)
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchU.S. Air Force
KeywordsHydrogen peroxideRelative humidityBromothymol blueChemistrySonicationOzoneMistHumidityNuclear chemistryChromatographyOrganic chemistryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mist is generated by ultrasonic cavitation of water (Fisher Biograde, pH 5.5–6.5) at room temperature (20–25 °C) in open air with nearly constant temperature (22–25 °C) but varying relative humidity (RH; 24–52%) over the course of many months. Water droplets in the mist are initially about 7 μm in diameter at about 50% RH. They are collected, and the concentration of hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) is measured using commercial peroxide test strips and by bromothymol blue oxidation. The quantification method is based on the Fenton chemistry of dye degradation to determine the oxidation capacity of water samples that have been treated by ultrasonication. It is found that the hydrogen peroxide concentration varies nearly linearly with RH over the range studied, reaching a low of 2 parts per million (ppm) at 24% RH and a high of 6 ppm at 52% RH. Some possible public health implications concerning the transmission of respiratory viral infections are suggested for this threefold change in H 2 O 2 concentration with RH.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQRB DiscoverySame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207