This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
There are some parts of this article which appear to me to be over long. I'd start with the section heading Approved products, then the list following The following products have been approved for EPA-Registrered antimicrobial copper alloy touch surfaces then goes on almost 200 lines listing things which are on a list. They seem to be a list of things which can be touched. I'm going to be bold and substitute "Many products have been approved for EPA-Registered antimicrobial copper alloy touch surfaces." If there's any objection, please discuss. SchreiberBike talk 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. A link from the EPA website listing all of the approved products was identified and added...so it is OK to delete this lengthy list from the article. The current article explains research and clinical trial work that has been conducted. As a new and innovative technology, readers will probably want to know that the R&D work has been exhaustive and global in scope. Enviromet ( talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Following moved off article absent a reason to include:
LeadSongDog come howl! 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The claim that copper surfaces inactivate viruses is sort of ... suspicious-sounding. How would they do that, exactly?
So I went looking for the references, and the only one directly cited for antiviral activity is this one, which looks sort of iffy to me. First of all, the domain name does not suggest a disinterested source. Second, the page shows some pretty pictures with green blobs claiming to represent active virus particles, and showing their impressive diminution over time. However, it is not really explained how you distinguish active from inactive particles in a way that makes the active ones show up as green blobs. The pictures are attributed to "Noyce, et al.", but I don't find any answer to who Noyce might be or any further link to the research.
This is not my field. Could I prevail on an expert to look into this? I'll notify WP:MED in case this article isn't on a lot of watchlists. -- Trovatore ( talk) 07:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
"All of the alloys have minimum nominal copper concentrations of 60%".
What happens below 60%?
Is there a significant difference between for example 30%, 60%, and 99% copper content?
If one buys a brass or bronze knoor knob from a store in USA or Europe, recently manufactured (not second-hand), does it likely contain >60% copper, if the knoor knob is not marketed as antimicrobial and copper content is not told?
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
There are some parts of this article which appear to me to be over long. I'd start with the section heading Approved products, then the list following The following products have been approved for EPA-Registrered antimicrobial copper alloy touch surfaces then goes on almost 200 lines listing things which are on a list. They seem to be a list of things which can be touched. I'm going to be bold and substitute "Many products have been approved for EPA-Registered antimicrobial copper alloy touch surfaces." If there's any objection, please discuss. SchreiberBike talk 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. A link from the EPA website listing all of the approved products was identified and added...so it is OK to delete this lengthy list from the article. The current article explains research and clinical trial work that has been conducted. As a new and innovative technology, readers will probably want to know that the R&D work has been exhaustive and global in scope. Enviromet ( talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Following moved off article absent a reason to include:
LeadSongDog come howl! 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The claim that copper surfaces inactivate viruses is sort of ... suspicious-sounding. How would they do that, exactly?
So I went looking for the references, and the only one directly cited for antiviral activity is this one, which looks sort of iffy to me. First of all, the domain name does not suggest a disinterested source. Second, the page shows some pretty pictures with green blobs claiming to represent active virus particles, and showing their impressive diminution over time. However, it is not really explained how you distinguish active from inactive particles in a way that makes the active ones show up as green blobs. The pictures are attributed to "Noyce, et al.", but I don't find any answer to who Noyce might be or any further link to the research.
This is not my field. Could I prevail on an expert to look into this? I'll notify WP:MED in case this article isn't on a lot of watchlists. -- Trovatore ( talk) 07:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
"All of the alloys have minimum nominal copper concentrations of 60%".
What happens below 60%?
Is there a significant difference between for example 30%, 60%, and 99% copper content?
If one buys a brass or bronze knoor knob from a store in USA or Europe, recently manufactured (not second-hand), does it likely contain >60% copper, if the knoor knob is not marketed as antimicrobial and copper content is not told?