MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407766357 · doi:10.1021/acsestair.4c00247

Factors Affecting Reduction of Infectious Aerosols by Far-UVC and Portable HEPA Air Cleaners

2025· article· en· W4407766357 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Ratliff, Lukas Oudejans, M. Worth Calfee, John D. Archer, Jerome Gilberry, David Adam Hook, William E. Schoppman, Robert Yaga

Bibliographic record

VenueACS ES&T Air · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsHEPAEnvironmental scienceEngineeringDrop (telecommunication)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technologies that can reduce concentrations of airborne microorganisms through either particle capture or inactivation are important tools for reducing the risk of disease transmission and improving overall indoor air quality. The effectiveness of these technologies is tested in different ways, and as a result, it is challenging to compare results and optimize their use in applied settings. In this study, experiments were conducted in a large bioaerosol chamber to evaluate the efficacy of far-UVC and portable HEPA air cleaners against the bacteriophage MS2 as a surrogate for human viral pathogens. For both technologies, changing the media used to aerosolize the microorganism from deionized water to a simulated saliva doubled effectiveness metrics (both log 10 reductions and clean air delivery rates). Because reductions did not follow first order, log–linear dynamics, using different segments of the test period to calculate efficacy also significantly impacted reported performance. Evidence shown here indicates that both microbiological and particle dynamics likely play a role in impacting test outcomes under current methods, and more research is needed to improve repeatable and reliable standardized approaches for determining technology performance against infectious aerosols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS ES&T AirSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207