Particle characterization in retail environments: concentrations, sources, and removal mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Particles in retail environments can have consequences for the occupational exposures of retail workers and customers, as well as the energy costs associated with ventilation and filtration. Little is known about particle characteristics in retail environments. We measured indoor and outdoor mass concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 , number concentrations of submicron particles (0.02-1 μm), size-resolved 0.3-10 μm particles, as well as ventilation rates in 14 retail stores during 24 site visits in Pennsylvania and Texas. Overall, the results were generally suggestive of relatively clean environments when compared to investigations of other building types and ambient/occupational regulatory limits. PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations (mean ± s.d.) were 20 ± 14 and 11 ± 10 μg/m(3), respectively, with indoor-to-outdoor ratios of 1.0 ± 0.7 and 0.88 ± 1.0. Mean submicron particle concentrations were 7220 ± 7500 particles/cm(3) with an indoor-to-outdoor ratio of 1.18 ± 1.30. The median contribution to PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations from indoor sources (vs. outdoors) was 83% and 53%, respectively. There were no significant correlations between measured ventilation rates and particle concentrations of any size. When examining options to lower PM2.5 concentrations below regulatory limits, the required changes to ventilation and filtration efficiency were site specific and depended on the indoor and outdoor concentration, emission rate, and infiltration level. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Little is known about particle concentrations, contribution of indoor sources, and emission rates in retail environments. Knowledge of these particle characteristics informs health scientists with input parameters to include in exposure modeling. The predicted concentration change in response to different ventilation rates and filtration efficiencies may be used for guidance to develop control strategies to lower particulate matter concentrations in retail environments.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".