MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414070067 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2025.21.15

Evaluation of Ozonated Water and Ultraviolet Light Water Treatments on Bacillus subtilis Spore Efficacy in Spiked Water Samples

2025· article· en· W4414070067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Craig L. Ramsey, Marissa L. Layman, Steve Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacillus subtilisWastewaterSporeUltraviolet lightUltravioletWater treatmentUltraviolet radiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this water treatment study was to evaluate the effects of ozonated water and ultraviolet light (100–280 nm) on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis spores. These water treatments are based on the current research for sanitizing bio-contaminated water. However, this study focused on small-scale water treatment units that could be modified or custom-built for a mobile sanitation system used for cleaning field equipment. The factorial study included four factors, resulting in a total of 16 water treatments. The ultraviolet light water treatment (UVC + UVC), with a total exposure time of 60 minutes, resulted in a log10 reduction of 3.51, equivalent to a 99.9% reduction in viable spores. The average spore reduction from UVC treatment increases with exposure time, then reaches an asymptotic plateau between 30 and 60 minutes. The combination of ozonated water with UV radiation yielded promising results in reducing spores. Wastewater technology, based on UVC systems, may be implemented with both mobile power washing systems. Additionally, larger units are required to effectively sterilize bio-contaminated wastewater within farms and storage facilities in the agricultural industry.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207