Evaluation of Concurrent Personal Measurements of Acrylonitrile Using Different Sampling Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a retrospective assessment of employee exposure to acrylonitrile (AN) for an epidemiological study, investigators from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluated the feasibility of using historic acrylonitrile air samples without modification. The evaluation discussed here was to determine whether the air sampling results across plants were comparable. During site visits to each plant conducted between 1984 and 1986, study investigators collected personal air samples for four days on approximately ten jobs per day. During these visits, IHs at seven of the eight plants also collected personal samples to compare their sample values to the study-collected sample values. Each plant's IH collected these concurrent measurements for their own use and independent of the IHs at the other plants. The plant IHs had no common sampling protocol but, rather, used professional judgment in deciding sampling logistics for their concurrent measurement. In addition, each plant IH used a different laboratory to analyze samples (the study industrial hygienists used one laboratory). Three sampling methods were used by plant industrial hygienists to collect concurrent measurements: charcoal tubes, passive monitors, and porous polymer tubes. The study investigators only used charcoal tubes. Two hundred and sixty four (264) pairs of concurrent measurements were collected. To assess the +/- comparability of the data sets, paired-observation tests were used. The two sets of charcoal tubes were found to compare favorably with each other. The study's charcoal tubes were 1.2 times higher than results from plant passive monitors. No correlation was found between the study's charcoal tube results and plant porous polymer tube results, although the means for 34 pairs of samples were equivalent. As a result of this evaluation, the investigators decided that no adjustments would be made to the plant measurements. This type of evaluation should be considered when using measurement data in multisite epidemiological studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".