In vitro efficacy of a copper iodine complex PPE disinfectant for SARS-CoV-2 inactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> The ability to protect workers and healthcare professionals from infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is of great concern. Hospitals, nursing homes and employers are adopting infection control strategies based on guidance from leading public health organizations such as the CDC, OSHA, FDA, and other government bodies. Certain hard surface disinfectants are effective against SARS-CoV-2 but are not suitable for use on skin or personal protective equipment (PPE) that comes into contact with skin. Furthermore, near-ubiquitous alcohol-based hand sanitizers are acceptable for use on skin, but they are not suitable for use on PPE. PPE, especially masks, are also commonly being used for longer durations than normal. There is a need for new products and techniques that can effectively disinfect PPE during wear time without having detrimental effects on surrounding skin. Clyraguard spray is a novel copper iodine complex designed to be used on non-critical PPE. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> In this study, the Clyraguard copper iodine complex was tested for its ability to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in solution. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> These data indicate the product to be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 titers in a time-dependent manner, with the virus being reduced below the detection limits within 30 minutes. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> These results suggest that Clyraguard may be an effective tool for mitigating cross-contamination of non-critical PPE that may come into contact with SARS-CoV-2. </ns4:p>
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".