Rapid determination of the antimicrobial properties of surfaces using an enzymatic activity surrogate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Typical approaches for assessing the antimicrobial activity of metals‐based surfaces involve the contact of a bacterial culture with the surface for a period of time, followed by culturing on agar plates to assess the decrease in microbial viability versus controls. This is a time‐consuming methodology requiring at least 24 h to produce a set of results, which can be a bottleneck for productivity in novel materials development. An enzyme‐based method was shown to be a satisfactory and much more rapid surrogate test for this application. A β‐galactosidase solution was applied to copper, silver, and zinc‐based antimicrobial surfaces for up to 1 h, and then the rate of colour development at 578 nm was monitored for a few minutes after addition of the chromogenic enzyme substrate chlorophenol red‐β‐d‐galactopyranoside (CPRG). Highly active antimicrobial surfaces were detected by a lack of colour development, due to enzyme inhibition by the metals. The enzymatic reaction rates were quantified and compared, demonstrating that the copper sample showed the greatest inhibition effect followed by the silver and zinc samples. The antimicrobial activity was quantified using bacteria and the plate count method, and the results correlated well with this enzyme assay, demonstrating that the metals‐based antimicrobial activities of both hard and soft (textile) surfaces could be quickly assessed with this enzyme‐based methodology.
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".