Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symptoms such as shortness of breath and cough have been noted in woodworking facilities even where wood dust itself is well-controlled. Suspicion has fallen on other possible contaminants in the workplace atmosphere, including bacterial endotoxin. A few studies have indicated potentially high endotoxin exposure with exposure to fresh wood in sawmills and in the production of fiberboard and chipboard, but fewer studies have been carried out on exposure to endotoxin in dry wood work, for example in joineries. A study of the endotoxin content of airborne wood dust samples from US woodworking facilities is presented, from the re-analysis of samples which previously had been taken to establish mass collection relationships between the IOM sampler, the closed-face 37 mm plastic cassette (CFC) sampler and the Button sampler. Endotoxin was strongly correlated with total dust, but the endotoxin content of a few fresh wood samples was found to be up to ten times higher per unit of wood dust than for dried-wood samples, and this difference was significant. No long-term time-weighted average sample exceeded the recommended limit value of 50 EU m(-3) (EU, endotoxin units)used in the Netherlands, although a number of the IOM samples came close (seven samples or 44% exceeded 20 EU m(-3)) and one short-term (48 minute) sample registered a high value of 73 EU m(-3). The geometric mean concentration from the IOM samples (11 EU m(-3)) is within the range of geometric means found from Australian joineries (3.7-60, combined: 24 EU m(-3)). In contrast, the corresponding values from the CFC (3.6 EU m(-3)), and the Button sampler (2.1 EU m(-3)) were much lower and no samples exceeded 20 EU m(-3). Endotoxin is likely only to be a significant problem in working with dried woods when associated with very high dust levels, where the wood dust itself is likely to be a cause for concern. The results from the few samples in this study where fresh wood was being worked were similar to results from other studies involving fresh woods. The agreement between these studies is encouraging given the difficulties of endotoxin analysis and the wide variation often expected between different laboratories.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".