MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042683227 · doi:10.1080/15459620490424483

Performance of Small Evacuated Canisters Equipped with a Novel Flow Controller for the Collection of Personal Air Samples

2004· article· en· W2042683227 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alan Rossner, Stephanie D. Warner, Adolf Vyskočil, Robert Tardif, Jean-Pierre Farant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSante MontrealMcGill University
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du TravailMcGill University
KeywordsAirflowEnvironmental scienceVolumetric flow rateSorbentSampling (signal processing)Volume (thermodynamics)ChromatographyChemistryComputer scienceEngineeringAdsorptionMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small evacuated canisters have become more common in industrial hygiene personal sampling in recent years. The smaller canisters necessitate a low flow rate to ensure a full-shift air sample can be collected. Evaluation of small evacuated canisters compared to sorbent sampling methods is essential to ensure that the canisters accurately monitor airborne contamination. This data, in a controlled environment, will provide practitioners with valuable reference information when considering air-sampling campaigns. Six 300-mL evacuated canisters were used to collect 6-hour breathing zone samples of styrene on volunteers in a large exposure chamber. The canisters were specially designed with a capillary flow controller developed at McGill University in the mid-1990s. Based on the geometry of the capillary the airflow into the canisters was controlled to a low flow rate, approximately 0.3 mL/min. This low sampling flow rate allowed for the use of small-volume canisters as personal samplers to collect styrene vapors. Charcoal tubes and diffusive badges were simultaneously used to collect side-by-side samples for comparison. In addition, an online gas chromatograph (GC) documented the concentration in the chamber throughout the duration of the exposure. The three methods did not disclose any significant statistical difference when compared to the online GC values and to each other. In addition, linear regression analysis between the charcoal tubes and the canisters resulted in a correlation (R(2) > 0.95). An evaluation of the bias and precision (overall uncertainty) of the capillary-canister method, charcoal tubes, and diffusive badges found them to be within criteria established by European Committee for Standardization 482. The results indicate that the capillary-canister sampling device can be an acceptable alternative to sorbent samplers as a personal sampler providing reliable results that are representative of exposures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207