Controlling Legionella pneumophila in Showerheads: Combination of Remedial Intervention and Preventative Flushing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shock chlorination and remedial flushing are suggested to address Legionella pneumophila (Lp) contamination in buildings or during their (re)commissioning. However, data on general microbial measurements (adenosine tri-phosphate [ATP], total cell counts [TCC]), and the abundance of Lp are lacking to support their temporary implementation with variable water demands. In this study, the weekly short-term (3-week) impact of shock chlorination (20–25 mg/L free chlorine, 16 h) or remedial flushing (5-min flush) combined with distinct flushing regimes (daily, weekly, stagnant) was investigated in duplicates of showerheads in two shower systems. Results showed that the combination of stagnation and shock chlorination prompted biomass regrowth, with ATP and TCC in the first draws reaching large regrowth factors of 4.31–7.07-fold and 3.51–5.68-fold, respectively, from baseline values. Contrastingly, remedial flushing followed by stagnation generally resulted in complete or larger regrowth in Lp culturability and gene copies (gc). Irrespective of the intervention, daily flushed showerheads resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) lower ATP and TCC, as well as lower Lp concentrations than weekly flushes, in general. Nonetheless, Lp persisted at concentrations ranging from 11 to 223 as the most probable number per liter (MPN/L) and in the same order of magnitude (103–104 gc/L) than baseline values after remedial flushing, despite daily/weekly flushing, unlike shock chlorination which suppressed Lp culturability (down 3-log) for two weeks and gene copies by 1-log. This study provides insights on the most optimal short-term combination of remedial and preventative strategies that can be considered pending the implementation of suitable engineering controls or building-wide 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 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 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".