Trace metal analysis of atmospheric particulate matter: A comparison of personal and ambient samplers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the size-resolved trace metal concentrations from a standard ambient sampler to those of three commercial personal samplers. Trace metals data from each personal sampler were also inter-compared. Co-located “fixed site” samples were collected in two urban sites in the United States using three types of personal samplers (BGI PM2.5 cyclone, URG PM2.5 cyclone, and Sioutas™ personal cascade impactor sampler [PCIS]) and one standard ambient sampler fitted with a PM2.5 cyclone. This experimental design enabled direct evaluation of the relative performance of the personal samplers. Results of mass measurements showed good agreement between the standard equipment and personal samplers;; however, trace metal comparisons (measured by ICP–MS) showed reproducible concentration biases among personal samplers. These biases can be summarized as BGI < URG < PCIS (0.27 ± 0.08, 0.72 ± 0.08, and 1.32 ± 0.34 relative to the ambient sampler). Elements exhibiting larger variation between personal samplers were associated with higher mass fractions in the coarse fraction, suggesting the PM2.5 size-cut a potential cause of this deviation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".