Inactivation Rates for Airborne Human Coronavirus by Low Doses of 222 nm Far-UVC Radiation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research using UV radiation with wavelengths in the 200–235 nm range, often referred to as far-UVC, suggests that the minimal health hazard associated with these wavelengths will allow direct use of far-UVC radiation within occupied indoor spaces to provide continuous disinfection. Earlier experimental studies estimated the susceptibility of airborne human coronavirus OC43 exposed to 222-nm radiation based on fitting an exponential dose–response curve to the data. The current study extends the results to a wider range of doses of 222 nm far-UVC radiation and uses a computational model coupling radiation transport and computational fluid dynamics to improve dosimetry estimates. The new results suggest that the inactivation of human coronavirus OC43 within our exposure system is better described using a bi-exponential dose–response relation, and the estimated susceptibility constant at low doses—the relevant parameter for realistic low dose rate exposures—was 12.4 ± 0.4 cm2/mJ, which described the behavior of 99.7% ± 0.05% of the virus population. This new estimate is more than double the earlier susceptibility constant estimates that were based on a single-exponential dose response. These new results offer further evidence as to the efficacy of far-UVC to inactivate airborne pathogens.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it