MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105794664

The analysis of the threat of reusing pet bottles for the storage of drinking water

2019· article· uk· W7105794664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldMedicine
TopicHuman Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisinfectantReuseBiofilmBottleTap waterMicroorganismWater bottleHealth hazard
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. According to a sociological survey of about 86% of Kharkiv (Ukraine) residents reuse PET bottles for a drinking water storing. This type of reuse of PET bottles isn't safe and the results of numerous research unequivocally confirm this assertion. The largest hazard of plastic bottles reuse for drinking water storage is biological film on the internally surface of bottle. This biofilm may contain pathogenic microorganisms which can migrate from biofilm to fresh water. Human, who drinking contaminated water, may drink microorganisms in common with this water. It's very dangerous, because the numerous strains of pathogens may migration in water and infect from gastric-bowel tract to the humans. Scientists from National technical university "Kharkiv polytechnic institute" in common with experts from Mechnikov institute of microbiology and immunology explored this problem and devised the apparatus, which can destroy a biofilm on polymer or another surface. Materials & Methods. The tested apparatus was the electrical device consisting of a block with electrodes, an electronic control, a water pump and a sprinkler for spraying the disinfectant. The electrode was made of 925˚ silver (sterling silver). Water for the preparation of a disinfectant was tap water and wasn't treated additionally. The sprinkler for spraying the disinfectant was placed in the neck of the infected bottle. Disinfectant solution was sprayed inside the bottle for 4 seconds. The water pressure was about 1.5 atmospheres. After that, the sprinkler was removed and the disinfectant was drained. A smear for microbiological composition was taken from three parts of the bottle - the neck, the middle part and the bottom. Growth of microorganisms and their detections was fixed by classic microbiological methods. Results & Discussion. In the article the scheme of the most probable and widespread way of infection of PET-bottles by pathogens and the way of minimization of this danger is given. Investigation of the contamination of the inner surface of the bottle by infected dust was carried out. It is determined that contaminated dust can cause a very serious infection contamination of inner surfaces of PET bottles and, subsequently, of water. In laboratory conditions and on the real object, a device for sanitizing surfaces was tested. It is established that the prototype of the device generates a disinfectant that destroys the most of known strains of microorganisms. This disinfectant is not toxic and is not dangerous to humans, the only product of evaporation of this product is water. With this disinfectant, the infection contamination on the inside of the PET bottle was completely eliminated. Thus, the use of a prototype device to minimize the threat of contamination of water consumers from recycled PET bottles is possible and very effective. Conclusions. 1. Potable water storage containers made of PET contain threats, the most serious of which is microbiological. 2. Without conducting regular disinfection or inactivation treatment of PET containers may be potential spreaders of human diseases. 3. The formed biological film cannot be destroyed or inactivated by means and substances that are at home. Potentially dangerous is the use of special, concentrated disinfectants at home. 4. Ions of silver are acknowledged in the world of practice antiseptic. 5. The use of silver ions to inactivate the biological film, while complying with state standards and methods of treatment, is safe and effective, which has been proved by research. 6. The developed method and apparatus are effective against the formed biological film and comply with the current legislation of Ukraine and some other countries, in particular the USA and Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHuman Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207