Surfactant Concentration and Type Affects the Removal of Escherichia coli from Pig Skin During a Simulated Handwash
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of surfactant type and concentration on a bland soap formulations ability to remove bacteria from hands remains largely unstudied. Several combinations of surfactants and water were combined to test bacterial removal efficacy using a handwashing device (two pieces of pig skin and a mechanical motor) to simulate a handwash. A nalidixic acid resistant, non-pathogenic strain of Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229) was used. Two anionic surfactants, sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium stearoyl lactylate, and two nonionic surfactants, poloxamer 407 and sorbitan monostearate, each in concentrations of 2%, 5%, and 10% were studied. A slight positive (r<sup>2</sup>=0.17) but significant (p=0.03) correlation was observed between hydrophile-lipophile balance value and mean log reduction. No correlation was observed between pH of the treatment solution and the mean log reduction (r<sup>2</sup>=0.05, p=0.25). A 10% sodium lauryl sulfate mixture showed the highest log reduction (x̄= 1.1 log cfu reduction, SD=0.54), and was the only treatment significantly different from washing with water (p=0.0005). There was a correlation between increasing surfactant concentrations above the critical micelle concentration, and mean microbial reduction (r<sup>2</sup>=0.62, p=0.001).
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.
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 it