A Comparison of Solid Sampler Methods for the Determination of Hexamethylene-Based Isocyanates in Spray-Painting Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A polyurethane foam sponge impregnated with 1-(2-methoxyphenyl) piperazine in dimethylsulfoxide was mounted in both cassette and inhalable organic monitor samplers and these were then compared with a dual-filter cassette. The samplers were used for the collection of hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) monomer and oligomers during actual spray-painting operations. The dual filter cassettes were positioned on a mannequin. The polyurethane foam cassette (PUF CAS) and polyurethane foam inhalable organic monitor (PUF IOM) samplers were positioned on a cart in the same maximum overspray area. Data from this pilot study suggest that there is no significant difference (P < 0.05, n = 6) in the amount of HDI monomer obtained with the PUF IOM sampler when compared with the amount obtained from the dual filter cassette. The data also suggest that the PUF IOM sampler yields a higher amount of HDI oligomer than either the dual filter cassette or the PUF CAS sampler, neither of which exhibited a significant difference (P < 0.05, n = 6) from each other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".