PhilGeis

Suggest you consider an application - relevant evaluation of efficacy in addition to MIC/MBC. There's no shortage of compounds reported in literature/patents to have "broad spectrum" efficacy at low concentrations.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3117807/what-do-sinovac-coronavirus-vaccine-efficacy-results-mean This is just a news item - perhaps ask your employer for actual report

Perhaps add aq. solubility as secondary dev objective

The only interpretation is an observable zone of inhibition +/-., please don't attempt additional interpretation. Some use solvents like DMSO or ethanol in MIC testing of materials of limited aqueous solubility - generates numbers but introduces another variable. II'm with Charon on the testing. It's not hard find materials showing some degree of inhibition in such testing. Patent and tehnical literature is full of such gee whiz reports. What will you do with materials of some antimicrobial capacity?

Biocides - including preservatives. any patents ?

How developed is this effort and to what eventual application are you thinking? Potential use as chemotherapeutic agents would be decades away but there are near term commercial applications that might find this of value. There is so little research into the latter that even early efforts get attention.

Disk diffusion (aka Kirby Bauer) does not give quantitiative results, and you should ot assume a "dead zone." You're looking at inhibition of growth. Your scenario of concentration dynamics after growth "has ceased" is not realistic - do not wate time on it. If you stuff is that isoluble you need another test protocol. Quantitative estimates can be obtained by microbial inhiibtion testing - typically determining growth in context of serially diluted the test compound in liquid (broth) growth medium inoclated with test micororganisms. Here's on group's description - https://emerypharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/mic-guide.pdf This kind of testing is largely academic - do you have a specific application in mind?

Yes - they did not look ar cultural factors - an unaddressed variable that confounds. Dismissing this uncontrolled variable as "pockets" orthodox Jews doesis not justified. Jobs - then one would have to address unemployment as well - didn;t see that addressed here. Appealing to economics is not justified - coincidence is not cause and "larger patterns" is a cop out.

Design is one element - another is performance in context. What is flow rate and how will it effectively filter enough room air (volume.time.flow) to really reduce risk.

Think we discssued this on another forum. You, can use surfactant supplementation to inhibit colony size and can count at earlier time points, marking colony foci. Think you are workmin g with A. brasiliensis 16404 - that grows well enough at 3-4 days to coount.

Her response it likely to be - we're all about "me". Folks get vaccinated for their own sake - not that of others.

Thanks - I understand the potocoll. Likely's seem pretty subjective. "Much less likely" - on what basis is that assumption offered? Certainly cultural differences have been reported in willingness to obtain vaccination. If the nature of the job is a primary contributing factor - edvcuation rather than wealth per se would appear to be root cause.

In terms of "unproven" - what specific social factor(s) associated with "inequality" was responsible for the observed difference? Could it be a cultural - in terms of difference in distancing and mask use practices?

Sunscreens are drugs in US, and TiO2 in the products may "block" UV light and is also photoactivated to produce free radicals. France banned E171 (commercial TiO2 used in many products) in 2020 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-003009_EN.html) observing there was not enough data to confirm its safety in context. Subsequent research has challenged the study that provoked the ban https://scitechdaily.com/france-banned-this-common-food-additive-the-fda-says-is-safe-who-is-right/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691519305836?via%3Dihub FDA and (I think) EU to this point have not changed GRAS status. Zaffy - save you money. The brush at best is a gimmick. Gimmicks do sell - but not usualy not in volume.

What you should take away from these observations is that microbes are everywhere. They're not necessarily growing - may be present as dormant spores. As RobertMD observed - it does look like Rhizopus sp. (look for it on Google images) but it's neither possible to identify specifically the microbes from the pictures nor estimate the health of using the water bottle bsed on th pictures.

As with all the biased claims of Trump and therapy/vaccine. This too is BS. Who cares what allegedly angers Germans?

Think one must take China stats with a grain of salt. WSJ reports China ended Wuhan lockdown - allowing both inbound and outbound traffic. However some housing complexes are still restricted. Worrisome - one state news outlet reported 20.000-30.000 new asymptomatic cases - a report that has been deleted.

Good grief - as ill informed on science and policy as many of you are - you sure are experts re. your bias.

Another facebook-style childish comment. Works for the ignorant. Perhaps you might offer a scenario by which anyone else profits from chlorquine. Suggest you review ANDA submissions for this generic drug.

Suggesting that Pres Trump profits from these the pharmaceutical is facebookian hateful bias. Perhaps you should invest a tiny amount of time to consider the facts. Chlroquine has been off patent for decades and its two primary large company suppliers - Teva and Bayer -_ are both publically-held companies. Both have donated millions of doses. Typical hateful bias. Suggest you folks stick to the ill-informed technical and policy discussions.

Suggest you spare us your hateful bias.

How do you see the ball being dropped? Please recall, viral outbreaks are frequent and response has often exceeded the realized risk. The classic was swine flu of Ford presidency where mass immunization was attempted after one death. Even now - WHO was hesitant to call it a pandemic due to criticism for previous exaggerated announcements. Hopefully ignoring the loud background of political gamesmanship and with the observation of questionable hindsight among folks here who are not expert in relevant epidemiology - what was dropped? One clearly was CDC's failed test. how else should folks - at that time and with that experience - have responded.

China wet market are not only an important source of urban food, they also provides a source of fresh food. Tho' the communist regime has extensive power (recall the temporary ban on Beijing automobile travel during Olympics) permanently shutting down may lead to social unrest in cities. The world has made many demands on China - why would another have any substance?

CharonY is exactly right. If you applied the same level of detection used for copper - to cardboard you'd see cardboard only moderately different. Again swansont - read the paper.

Please think critically. Read the paper - not just the comments. Cardboard was tested and wasn't much worse than copper.